HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board 2016-03-30Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, March 30, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town
of Estes Park on the 30th day of March 2016.
Present:
Also Present:
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
Wendy Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees John Ericson
Bob Holcomb
Ward Nelson
Ron Norris
John Phipps
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
Greg White, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Larimer County Commissioners Tom Donnelly, Lew Gaiter
and Steve Johnson
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
ACTION ITEM:
1. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ORDINANCE #10-16 - PUBLIC HEARING —
AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
RELATED TO VACATION HOME REGULATIONS. Planner Kleisler
provided a review of the amendments to the vacation home regulations to
address growing issues related to short-term rentals within the valley. In
2010, the Development Code was amended to allow vacation rentals as a
principle use throughout the Estes Valley rather than as an accessory use.
Larimer County prohibited vacation homes prior to these changes in the
Estes Valley Development Area. Vacation rentals have increased each year
since the changes in 2010, bringing with them ancillary services such as local
marketing websites and professional property managers. The increase in
rentals is expected to increase for the foreseeable future. The proposed
amendments, particularly those related to neighborhood communication, are
critical in facilitating harmonious relationships in residential neighborhoods.
The Estes Valley Planning Commission was directed by the two Boards to
review and provide a recommendation on the concept of a cap. The
Commission held two public hearing at their regular scheduled meetings in
February and March, and after review recommended that a valley -wide limit
on the number of annual operating/business licenses be limited to 700, with
an annual review by the Board. The proposed limit would be approximately
10% of the current housing market. This limit would have the greatest impact
to residential neighborhoods. If approved staff would manage a waitlist for
properties once the 700 cap was reached.
Neighborhood communication would facilitate communication between the
vacation home owner and the nearby property owners. The EVDC does not
require neighborhood notification through the licensing process. The
proposed regulations would require an internal posting for renters to include
items such as local contact, maximum occupancy, water and gas shutoff
locations, quiet hours, etc.; require a reference to the property's
Board of Trustees — March 30, 2016 — Page 2
permit/license number with all online listings; and require that a written notice
be mailed to nearby neighbors providing the local contact and owner contact
information. The mailings would not constitute a comment period for the
permit issuance.
Enforcement regulations have been drafted using existing regulation
including the Community Development Director may deny or withhold a
permit/license during the annual renewal process until a violation has been
corrected or resolved in court; the Community Development Director may call
a public hearing to revoke a vacation home permit pursuant to Section
12.4.A.1 as a result of a code violation; and revise the required 15-day period
for the property owner to address the violation by making the 15-days
optional by the Code Enforcement Officer. The Estes Valley Planning
Commission has requested the Commission be the appealing authority rather
than the Town Board or the County Commissioners. The Code Compliance
Policy 480 would be revised following the adoption of the proposed
Ordinance to include specific information about how staff administers the new
regulations such as revocation of a license. Staff proposes the new policy
would be drafted for approval by the Town Administrator within 30-days from
approval of the Ordinance.
Linda Hardin/Code Enforcement Officer reviewed the current procedures
outlined in Policy 480 for complaints filed. She stated disturbance
complaints, noise and lighting complaints are addressed by the Police or the
Sheriff. These complaints occur most often during the weekends. Staff
addresses most complaints through voluntary compliance and works up to
stop work orders, fines and Municipal Court. The revised policy would be
amended to address vacation homes separately from other violations. Staff
completed a review of VRBO listings in the Estes Valley and found 440
vacation homes with 107 not permitted/licensed. 100 Notices of Violations
were sent earlier this year causing an increase in the number of applications
being processed.
Mayor Pinkham opened the public meeting. Public comments were heard
against the proposed regulations and have been summarized from Heidi Welsh,
Seth Smith, Nick Thomas, Martha McCarver, Millicent Cozzie, Carol Beidleman,
Eric Blackhurst, Judy Anderson, Eric Marske, William Kisfer, Betty Harrison, Ed
Peterson, Doug Bigge, and Jeff Moreau. Comments included the approval of a
new complaint process and enforcement regulations would be developed by staff
without a public process. Vacation home owners are being targeted by the
proposed regulations. The new task force being formed by the County should
address enforcement regulations before they are implemented. There needs to
be a definition of guest/individual. There is a fundamental disconnect in
enforcement and what the public wants from enforcement which should be
completed locally. Government should not regulate personal property rights and
the proposed regulations could be perceived as a taking of property. Concern
raised by realtors on how they would be notified if a vacation home
permit/license becomes available once the cap is reached. Stronger language
on noise control and outdoor activities should be addressed. Current
enforcement has already proven to work and regulating a diverse industry with a
one size fits all approach will not work. Enforcement should be addressed to
manage vacation home rentals with a fine system. Concerns were heard on how
to comply with items such as marking of property lines, exterior lighting
standards and gas shutoffs when Excel does not permit an individual to shut off
the gas.
Those speaking in favor of the proposed regulations included Theresa White,
Tom Hochstetler, Bob Leavitt, Carol Beidleman, Bob Rising and Mick Scarpella.
The proposed regulations place the responsibility on the vacation home owners
and some responsibility should be placed on the renters. Vacation homes are a
commercial business that does not belong in residential neighborhoods and
should be taxed as a commercial property. These properties would impact the
Board of Trustees — March 30, 2016 — Page 3
local taxing entities such as schools and hospitals negatively. Requested the
Boards consider a 4% cap to protect residential neighborhoods and limit the
number in each neighborhood.
Mayor Pinkham closed the public hearing.
Town Board comments were summarized: the public has highlighted the
need to have thoroughly vetted enforcement procedures in place for vacation
rentals, a lack of good information on violations, there would be an inequity in
enforcement of regulations in the County as Sheriff Smith has stated a lack of
staff to address code enforcement issues within the unincorporated Estes
Valley; approval of a cap would be premature without a better understanding
of the number of permits issued; concern with the quality of life for those
living among vacation rentals and how an unlimited number may impact the
character of the neighborhoods; and the general consensus of the Board was
to move forward with the proposed regulations without a cap at this time, as
further research on the current numbers would be needed before a specific
number could be adopted.
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig requested a number of changes to the proposed
regulations including 5.1.B.1.a.2 add the wording by phone or cell phone,
5.1.B.1.c.4 regarding accessory buildings be removed from the code,
5.1.B.1.c.7 should align quiet hours with hotels, the notice requirements
should be updated to reflect those outlined and recommended by staff,
5.1.B.1.g should be updated to explicitly state ADUs cannot be rented at the
same time as the primary unit is rented as a vacation home.
Commissioner Gaiter recommended the exclusion of A or A-1 zoned
properties as well as any bed and breakfasts from the proposed cap.
Commissioner Gaiter also requested that a definition of guest be included in
the Ordinance. Commissioner Johnson stated support of the amendments
recommended by Commissioner Gaiter.
Trustee Nelson commented the proposed regulations do not adequately
address the enforcement issues and the difference between issues
addressed by law enforcement and code enforcement. He further stated he
would not support the proposed Ordinance with a cap and would submit the
Boards should wait to gather further data on how many permits have been
issued before setting a cap.
Attorney White read Ordinance #10-16. It was moved and seconded
(Ericson/Phipps) to approve Ordinance #10-16 with the deletion of 5.1.B.1.a.5
Density/Cap. A substitute motion was made.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Holcomb) to approve Ordinance #10-16
with the deletion of section 5.1.B.a.5 — Density, the exclusion of A and A-1
zoned properties and bed and breakfast from any future cap consideration,
define guest, add the local contact must be available by phone, delete
section 5.1.B.1.c.4 related to accessory buildings, remove the requirement
for copies of the mailing list to be provided under section 5.1.B.1.d.3.c,
clarify under section 5.1.B.1.e.1.i that accessory dwelling units are not to
be occupied as a vacation rental at the same time as the primary dwelling
unit, and develop the enforcement procedures for review by both the Town
Board and the County Commissioners before moving forward with
enforcement, and it passed with Mayor Pro Tem Koenig and Trustee Nelson
voting "No".
County Commissioner Donnelly opened the Board of County Commissioner meeting.
Discussion ensued with Commissioner Johnson stating concern with regard to the lack
of permanent housing within the Estes Valley and the lack of work force housing. As
Board of Trustees — March 30, 2016 — Page 4
the trend to convert permanent housing into vacation rentals grows without a cap on
short-term rentals, the quality of the community would be altered. Commissioner Gaiter
agreed and recommended a cap with the exclusion of A and A-1 zoned properties and
bed and breakfasts.
Commissioner Gaiter moved that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
Ordinance with a cap of 700 on short-term rentals excluding A and A-1 zones and bed
and breakfasts, with modifications to exhibit A to move Paragraph 5.1.B.1.a.(5) as it
relates to density to create a new paragraph 5.1.B.3.c only putting the density in
vacation rentals, excluding bed and breakfasts; and additionally, the wording should be
changed from "the total number of annual operating permits shall be limited to 700" to
"the total number of annual operating permits shall be limited to 700 excluding vacation
rentals in the A and A-1 zones. The motion passed unanimously.
Town Attorney White acknowledged the Boards had approved language that was not in
agreement, and therefore, could not be codified in the Development Code.
Administrator Lancaster stated the only disagreement was the cap.
Discussion followed with Commissioner Gaiter stating agreement with the
recommended code changes proposed by the Town Board; however, there must be a
cap to protect the character of the neighborhoods. He would be willing to discuss the
700 number. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig commented on the need to set a reasonable cap
that looks at the distribution because the number alone would not protect the integrity of
the neighborhoods. Trustee Norris agreed and stated the two Boards do not have the
information needed to make a decision. Trustee Holcomb would be hesitant to set a
cap at this time. Trustee Ericson requested the task force complete its work and have
them also address the cap. Trustee Nelson would like to have the information prior to
making a decision and acknowledged all 10 of the elected officials are concerned with
the quality of life for its citizens.
Town Attorney White suggested the two Boards reconvene within the next 30 days to
discuss the item of a cap further.
Whereupon Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 7:5
William C. Pinkham, Mayor
JacCv Williamson, Town Clerk