Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2016-02-02 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado February 2, 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 2nd day of February, 2016. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson, Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps County Commission: Chair Donnelly, Commissioner Gaiter (by phone) 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 Planning Director Gilbert, Community Development Director Chilcott, Planner Kleisler and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: Planning Commissioner Klink Meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. The meeting between Town Board, County Commissioners and Planning Commission was held to discuss next steps in the vacation home regulations. Melissa Westover/facilitator provided the group guidance throughout the discussion. Staff recommended the group discuss items in which there has been agreement and the draft ordinance that addresses effective code enforcement, separating the small and larger rentals through new uses, high intensity use would be reviewed through a Conditional Use Permit or Special Review, internal postings to educate renters and notify the neighbors, and amend parking requirements to be consistent with residential properties. Initial discussion focused on the need to address the number of guests versus the number of rooms and to ensure the regulations are equal across the valley. The County questioned if they could contract with the Town for code enforcement. Chief Kufeld stated the Town could provide code enforcement; however, the County Sheriff would need to be involved. VACATION HOME FOR EIGHT AND LESS PEOPLE. Discussion followed on the regulations for a low intensity vacation home of eight (8) or less guests. The County proposed the following regulations: 1) Recommend initial fee as state statutes do not allow the County to collect an annual fee; 2) Applicant must mail a notification to the surrounding property owners, with comments going to the Town Clerk; 3) Town Clerk could refer application to Planning Commission, for approval, if surrounding property owners are objecting to use; 4) Renewals should be noticed, before approval or denial; 5) Publish/post list of approved permits on Town website, with 24-hour contact; and 6) Code Enforcement process should include “show cause” hearings and action by elected bodies to cease operations. Discussion followed and has been summarized: Less intense vacation homes should be permitted as a use by right in residential and accommodation zones. Trustee Norris commented there are vacation homes that are well managed and those causing Town Board Study Session – February 2, 2016 – Page 2 continuous problems with their neighbors. Limiting the use does not solve the problem. Increased and consistent enforcement is needed. Planning Commissioner Moon would recommend a cap on the number of vacation homes in the valley to protect the community from becoming predominately vacation homes. Planning Commissioner White stated the CAST vacation home report should be reviewed and discussed as it outlines best practices including the limit of eight or less per vacation rental. If vacation homes are permitted by right in all residential zoning district the Development Code should consider that not one size fits all as properties vary from quarter acre to 10 acres. Mayor Pro Tem Koenig commented the homes with up to eight guests have just as many complaints as those with more than eight; therefore, the homes no matter the size should be treated the same. A Special Review process would be treating those homes with more than eight differently and may not be needed. County Commissioner Johnson stated concern with the town and neighborhoods becoming transformed. He would support a cap for the entire valley. He commented the larger homes that accommodate more than eight guests are a higher intensity use and should be treated differently. Discussion continued on how the different sized vacation homes should be treated. It was questioned when the use becomes a commercial use. Attorney White commented the cap could be used; however, it would be difficult and unenforceable. The Town and County may find themselves addressing an equal protect situation. County Manager Hoffman stated the main issue continues to be consistent code enforcement. Properties with violations would have to show cause through a hearing as to why their permit should not be revoked. If the property owner continues to rent the home the issue would be taken to district court. Larimer County Community Development Director Gilbert commented an initial one-time fee could be charged for the use. An annual renewal fee could not be collected per state statute. In order to charge an annual fee the state statutes would have to be amended. The use remains a residential use with eight or less. Over eight it becomes a commercial use and would require a Special Review in the County. After further discussion, a consensus was reached to have the Planning Commission consider the development of a cap for the valley on a percentage based on the number of households in the valley. The recommended changes would include an initial fee in the County, a notification mailed by the vacation home owner to the neighbors, refer application if the surrounding neighbors object to the vacation home and a proposed comment period of 2 weeks, renewal should be noticed, and publish a 24-hour contact on the Town’s website. VACATION HOME FOR MORE THAN EIGHT PEOPLE. Discussion on higher intensity vacation homes was heard and has been summarized. Trustee Phipps commented individuals purchase a home with the right to rely on the zoning in place at the time of purchase. Allowing more than eight guests in a residential home would amount to defacto rezoning and would change the character of the neighborhood. The community’s schools, hospital and new community center would suffer as the number of permanent residents decrease due to a lack of housing options. He would not be in favor of high intensity vacation homes. Planning Commissioner Hull questioned when a home becomes a small hotel due to the occupancy. A small hotel would be considered a commercial establishment in a residential zoning district. Staff provided a review of the building codes that can be interrupted differently. Staff would need guidance from the elected officials to determine if a residential home would be considered a small hotel and should be sprinkled. Town Board Study Session – February 2, 2016 – Page 3 Trustee Norris questioned when does the number of guests and size of the home change the residential character of the neighborhood. He stated there are areas in the valley where larger homes and larger parties would make sense. The County Commissioners are not prepared to discuss over eight guests in a vacation home with the current code amendments. They proposed a task force to address the issue and provide further discussion between owners and neighbors. Discussion followed on if the Town and County should develop separate codes to address the number of guests. It was stated by doing so it would be more likely to drive larger homes and parties into Town limits. Trustees Ericson, Holcomb and Nelson agreed the Town has been holding public forums and gathering public input for months. They would not support a task force and suggested the Town move forward with its own code amendments. Planning Commissioner Hull would not support a Town only code amendment. After further discussion, a consensus was reached on the formation of a task force to review the over eight limit. The County would take the lead in developing a timeline for final code adoptions in November 2016, and establishing the make-up of the task force members. Mayor Pinkham stated the Board, County Commissioners and Planning Commissioners would not be involved in the task force and the task force should consist of citizens, owners, neighbors, and affected groups. Staff would prepare code amendments for the eight and under and bring them forward to the Planning Commission for review and Board and County Commissioner approval at a joint meeting in March. Amendments would be developed for the entire Estes Valley after the task force has made recommendations to the County and the Town. Administrator Lancaster stated a moratorium on enforcement for over eight would be established until the task force has completed its work and amendments adopted. Attorney White clarified the moratorium would be on the number of guests and all other regulation would be enforced. The consensus was not to address code violations on the number of guests for vacation homes of nine or more. ENFORCEMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATIONS. Planner Kleisler reviewed the enforcement and neighborhood notifications including: 1) Communication between a vacation home owner and nearby property owner must increase; 2) Nearby property owners should be able to influence the renewal of a vacation home permit on an annual basis; and 3) A limit should be set on the number of vacation homes in the Estes Valley. Additional notifications would include an internal posting to the renter containing contact information and operational restrictions. All online advertisements should include the rental license number. The rental owner or operator must notify all neighbors within a 100-foot radius of the home to provide contact information. The Town should maintain a public, online map of vacation rentals throughout the Estes Valley that includes the local contact phone number. Discussion followed on the enforcement and notification items. Concerns were raised on the how the 100-foot would be determined. The online advertisement requirement could be difficult to enforce and should not be a requirement. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:23 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk