HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2016-01-12
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 12, 2016
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION of
the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at the
Town Hall in Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of
January, 2016.
Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Attending: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson,
Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps
Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator
Machalek, Attorney White, Deputy Town Clerk Deats
Absent: None
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m.
VACATION HOME FEES, CODE ENFORCEMENT & BUILDING CODE UPDATES.
Planner Kleisler reported that in mid-2015 a project was initiated to examine current
processes and regulations as they relate to vacation home rentals (VHR) in the Estes
Valley. Public meetings, small group forums and public hearings on the topic have been
held by both the Town and Larimer County. The meetings, designed to inform and solicit
input from the public, have been well-attended by community residents. Public comment
focused on a variety of issues with code enforcement, occupancy, and licensing making
up the top three concerns. Additionally, concerns about the rapid increase in the number
of vacation homes and the desire to implement safeguards to preserve the character of
neighborhoods were also heard. Planner Kleisler noted that a public meeting hosted by
the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners would be held on Monday, January
25, 2016, at 4 p.m. in the Town Hall Board Room. Staff recommended two additional
joint work sessions between the Town Board and the County Commissioners be held,
one in February and a second in March or April. The Estes Valley Planning Commission
will review the proposal for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and make
comments prior to a final ordinance being brought forward for adoption, possibly in April
2016. Mayor Pinkham and the Trustees voiced their desire to move forward with the
ordinance prior to seating the new Town Board in April.
With an objective of striking a balance between property rights and neighborhood
character, issues reviewed included, but were not limited to, licensing fees, occupancy
rates, life safety concerns, enforcement and regulatory options. Public comments show
a concern for code enforcement as it relates to licensing and permitting, occupancy limits,
parking, the number of vehicles allowed at a vacation home, noise and other
disturbances. Staff noted that the Estes Park Police Department (EPPD) responds to
disturbances and calls within the Town of Estes Park with violations heard in municipal
court and disturbances and calls outside of the Town limits are the responsibility of the
Larimer County Sheriff’s Department with violations heard in county court. Attorney White
noted that changes to the EVDC would be required to add provisions that address the
transient nature of VHR occupants, such as removing the time allowed to remedy a
violation when involving a VHR. Who to charge with the violation, (the renter, the owner
or both) would also need to be determined based on the type of violation cited as well as
a fine schedule developed and approved by the Municipal Court Judge.
Staff proposed that business license fees be utilized to fund a seasonal code compliance
position to work on violations primarily associated with licensing and permitting, and
compliance with established occupancy limits in advertising and on websites such as
Vacation Rental By Owner (VRBO). Staff researched the time involved in performing
these type of tasks for approximately 200 cases and concluded that the proposed fee
structure would capture adequate funds to support the position. The current charge for a
vacation home rental business license within Town limits is $150. Staff proposed
Town Board Study Session – January 12, 2016 – Page 2
changing the charge for a VHR business license to a base fee of $150 for a one-bedroom
vacation home, plus $50 per additional bedroom with a maximum fee not to exceed $500.
However, based on the General business license fee of $200, the Trustees directed staff
to revise the fee schedule to include a $200 base fee plus $50 for each bedroom, with a
not to exceed maximum fee of $500 and move forward with preparing an ordinance to
adopt the new fee schedule at the January 26, 2016, Town Board meeting. The Larimer
County Assessor’s records would be utilized to verify the number of bedrooms. Planner
Kleisler reported that Larimer County will not be moving forward with implementing a fee
for county vacation homes within the Estes Valley at this time, noting that the
Commissioners requested that County staff delay bringing forward a fee schedule. Town
Administrator Lancaster stated that the Town cannot subsidize enforcement of vacation
home regulations in the County and said that the flat fee charged to the County for
enforcement of the Estes Valley Development Code may need to be increased to cover
Larimer County’s portion of VHR code enforcement. He said without fees the same level
of VHR code enforcement could not be provided to county vacation homes. Additionally,
it was noted that a discussion about a proposed sustainable work force housing fund
supported by licensing and/or impact fees would be addressed as a separate topic of
discussion at an upcoming Town Board Study Session.
At a meeting in November 2015, the Board expressed interest in regulating larger VHRs
as commercial operations as it relates to building standards. Chief Building Official (CBO)
Will Birchfield said VHRs are currently regulated as single-family dwellings by their
design, not their use, under the International Residential Code (IRC). To regulate as
commercial properties, VHRs would be regulated by their use and fall under the
International Building Code (IBC). He identified three options for the Board to consider
related to larger vacation homes that would have an occupancy allowance higher than
the current limit of eight:
1. No change – regulated under the IRC – Vacation homes would be licensed
regardless of size or occupancy, with no inspection or additional safety
requirements.
2. Regulate to the IBC – This would, at a minimum, trigger sprinkler and accessibility
requirements. This option provides the greatest amount of protection to renters
and nearby properties but could increase costs to the vacation home owner.
3. Adopt a compromised approach – The Board could tailor requirements to address
the most critical needs of the community by making local amendments to the
Building Codes. For example, the amendments could address life safety issues
and require inspections to ensure proper egress, check carbon monoxide and
smoke alarms and gas appliances, and give the CBO the authority to conduct
these inspections. This option is recommended by staff.
The Board expressed interest in local amendments and directed CBO Birchfield to draft
proposals to bring to the Board at the next Town Board Study Session.
Mayor Pinkham recessed the meeting at 5:49 p.m. for a dinner break and resumed the
meeting at 6:10 p.m.
FISH HATCHERY PROPERTY STATUS UPDATE.
In December, representatives of the Estes Park Housing Authority, the Estes Valley Land
Trust and the Town of Estes Park met to discuss the Town-owned property on Fish
Hatchery Road. Town Administrator Lancaster displayed a diagram of the property and
reported on ways to utilize the land by possibly separating it into three key sections. He
noted that the Town would retain ownership of, and preserve, historic areas of the parcel.
Ideas discussed include using approximately 20 acres of the property for work force
housing by building single-family homes, duplexes, or multi-family units. The units would
be deed restricted and target those working within the boundaries of Park School District
R-3 earning 80% to 150% of the area median income. The Town’s contribution to such
a project would be the land at no cost. The Estes Park Housing Authority would take the
lead and work with private developers to come back with a PUD for the site with the
possible inclusion of a daycare facility. Discussion also included preserving a portion of
the property for low-impact recreational use and open space with or without a
conservation easement.
Town Board Study Session – January 12, 2016 – Page 3
Discussion is summarized: portions of the parcel are quite steep and other areas are
within the flood plain; some buildings and structures would need to be removed from the
property; the Town has rental properties and storage facilities on the parcel; dedicate
several units to the Town for employee housing if work force housing is built; what
infrastructure currently exists on the property?; and need more development ideas that
would optimize use of the property;
Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated that the Fish Hatchery property is a prime piece of real
estate and could provide the Town an opportunity to make a profit and possibly purchase
additional properties for development. She said the property should be used to start a
chain reaction of development possibilities to carry the Town through the next 20 years.
She supported researching additional scenarios including sale of the property and
discussing the pros and cons of a conservation easement.
Town Administrator Lancaster said additional research would be conducted related to the
best options for the larger parcel. The Board supported the EPHA moving forward with
conversations with private developers related to ideas for a housing project on the
approximate 20 acre site.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
Mayor Right to Vote – Mayor Pro Tem Koenig stated that this “housekeeping” topic
can only be addressed every four years and requested that it be placed on the
agenda for the January 26, 2016, Town Board meeting. Currently, the Municipal
Code states that the Mayor shall not vote except in the case of a tie. If the Board
were to consider a change to the code, it must be done within 60 days of the
upcoming regular municipal election. Attorney White will prepare a report to the
Board and public comment will be taken. If it is the Board’s desire to leave the
code unchanged, no action would be required. If a change is to be considered, an
ordinance would be prepared and brought forward to the Board as an action item
at a subsequent Town Board meeting.
Estes Park Pride Awards – The Estes Park High School Pride Award Scholarship
will be offered again this year in the amount of $3500 with the same selection
criteria as in the past. The Volunteer, Business Person, Group, and Teacher of
the Year awards will not be given out in 2016 as they are seen as a duplication of
awards also given out by the school district, the Nonprofit Resource Center and
other local organizations. Ideas on how to rejuvenate and revitalize the Estes Park
Pride Awards program will be discussed.
Solid Waste Issues – Town Administrator Lancaster reported that Larimer County
is seeking an Estes Park Town Board Trustee to participate in a group that will
meet over the next year or two to address the transfer station, recycling, and major
policy questions related to solid waste. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig voiced interest in
representing the Town on this ongoing committee.
Events Director – Rob Hinkle was introduced to the Board. Mr. Hinkle started work
on Tuesday, January 12, 2016, as the Town’s new Events Director.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
This agenda item was not discussed due to a lack of time.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:46 p.m.
Cynthia Deats, Deputy Town Clerk