HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Special Study Session 2015-11-09
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 9, 2015
Minutes of a Special meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of
the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at the
Town Hall Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of
November, 2015.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
County Commission Commissioners Donnelly, Johnson and Gaiter
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps, Commissioners
Donnelly, Johnson and Gaiter
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Attorney White, Director Chilcott, Planner Kleisler,
Planning Commission Chair Betty Hull, and Recording
Secretary Limmiatis
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
VACATION HOME POLICY DISCUSSION.
Mayor Pinkham noted the County Commissioners had not arrived yet and suggested the
meeting commence. No public comment would be heard as the meeting’s purpose was
for dialogue between the Board, Commissioners and staff.
Planner Kleisler provided a brief synopsis of the draft Vacation Home Policy to date. Staff
has completed research, outreach and solicited public comment. Staff wanted to gather
feedback on the policy and receive guidance on the draft ordinance in order to maintain
balance between private property rights and residential neighborhood character. Several
key issues were identified as outlined below:
Should vacation homes with a higher occupancy be permitted in residential zone
districts?
Should a limit be set on the number of vacation homes within the Town and
unincorporated Estes Valley?
Should there be a limit to the size or maximum occupancy of larger vacation
homes?
Should vacation homes with a higher occupancy be treated as a commercial use
in terms of building code and public facilities requirements?
Where should vacation homes with a larger occupancy be permitted?
What should the review process be for vacation homes with a larger occupancy?
What should the review criteria be for vacation homes with a larger occupancy?
Topics of discussion are summarized: Impacts on seasonal and workforce housing;
enforcement concerns; covering operational costs; the point at which a property becomes
a commercial enterprise; what constitutes a small hotel; the special review process versus
a conditional use permit; a formulaic occupancy limit of extending two individuals per
bedroom plus two including a limit up to 20 individuals; the ability for the County to levy
fines; mitigation of negative effects to the maximum extent possible; revocation of permits;
determining adequate public facilities; the ability to appeal by either the home owner or
neighbor to the Planning Commission; investigating the cost of the license to apply funds
towards workforce housing; and changes to the adoption schedule to allow adequate time
for the County Commissioners and Planning Commission to come to an understanding
of the issues in question.
Town Board Study Session – November 9, 2015 – Page 2
Trustee Phipps expressed concerns regarding high density occupations in residential
zones, particularly those with a smaller lot size, and the need for public input during the
licensing process.
The Board reached a consensus on allowing larger vacation rentals in residential
neighborhoods. There would not be a cap placed on the number of licenses issued, but
staff would continue to monitor requests closely. Large vacation home rentals would be
allowed with a maximum occupancy of 20 individuals. No maximum square footage would
be required. Large vacation rentals would be allowed in the RE and RE-1 zoning districts
through a Conditional Use Permit and in E and E-1 zoning districts through Special
Review. Commercial zoning standards, such as adequate public facilities should be
applied to larger rentals, yet staff would need to waive certain standards such as street
paving. The Board agreed with staff’s recommendation of review for Conditional Use
Permits. Again adequate public facilities, including means of legal access, should be
required.
Planning Commission Chair Hull stated a recommendation from the Planning
Commission within a month would not allow sufficient time for a thorough discussion and
requested the reading of the ordinance be delayed to the first Town Board meeting in
January 2016.
The County Commissioners appreciated being included on the meeting, but stated they
had not had the benefit of the public process and were not inclined to make a decision or
provide guidance at this point in time. Concerns were expressed regarding enforcement
and the Commissioners would like more time to investigate the issues and receive public
comment.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:33 p.m.
Barbara Jo Limmiatis, Recording Secretary