Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Study Session 2016-08-30 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado August 30, 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 30th day of August, 2016. Board: Mayor Jirsa, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Holcomb, Martchink, Nelson, Norris and Walker County Commission: Chair Donnelly, Commissioner Gaiter 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 Community Development Director Gilbert, Community Development Director Hunt, Senior Planner Chilcott and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: None Meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. VACATION RENTAL TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION PRESENTATION. The meeting between Town Board, County Commissioners and Estes Valley Planning Commission was held to discuss the Vacation Rental Task Force recommendations for vacation homes of nine or more. Larimer County Community Development Director Terry Gilbert reviewed the process used by the Task Force in considering each recommendation item. During the Task Force process, the method of determining the recommendations from the Task Force was changed, from a “Informed Consent/Unified Decision” process to a voting (head count) process. This caused some delay and added one additional meeting on August 3, 2016. A total of 18 items were discussed with 15 items coming forward with unanimous recommendations from the Task Force. The Task Force could not reach a recommendation on two of the items. Neighborhood character was determined to be an item the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners would need to determine during their final approval or denial of an application. A key issue of concern discussed by the Task Force was the lack of enforcement of the current land use regulations and whether enforcement was going to continue to be an issue. The Task Force would recommend the Board of Trustees and Board of County Commissioners modify the Building Codes to be consistent in how vacation rentals, for those that have occupancy of nine and above, are regulated. Task Force Recommendations have been outlined below:  Occupancy – Each home would be limited to two per bedroom plus two.  Traffic Limitations – No additional traffic requirements in areas adjacent to vacation rentals.  Speed Limits – No additional speed limit requirements in areas adjacent to vacation rentals. Town Board Study Session – August 30, 2016 – Page 2  Establishing Bedroom Count – Staff has begun the review of both the Assessor’s records and the Building records to establish the number of legal bedrooms that can be permitted.  Inspections – All normal land use, building, health, fire, etc. inspections to be completed and no annual inspections would be required.  Grandfathering – All vacation homes existing as of July 1, 2016 with the capacity of nine or more per the established guidelines of two per bedroom plus two would be grandfathered as it relates to the following: lot size of less than one acre and setbacks of less than 25 feet. All vacation homes of nine or more would have to submit an application within 30 days of the final adoption of the new regulations in order to be grandfathered from the new minimum lot size and setback requirements.  Location Requirements – Vacation homes of nine or more would be allowed in the same zoning district as the eight and under. Restrictions would include the minimum lot size of one acre lot and minimum setbacks of 25 foot setbacks or the zoning district setbacks, whichever would be greater.  Parking – The current Estes Valley Development Code language in Section 5.2.B.2.e.6 (a) & (b) would be used to determine the number of cars allowed to be parked outside. This number would be dependent on the acreage of the lot. A variance to the parking requirements would need to be added to the application in order for more vehicles to be parked on the lot than allowed by code.  Renter Notification Requirements – A posting in the home for both nine and above and eight and under was recommended to include physical address, license/permit number, owner/manager contact information, important local contact information (police, fire, etc.), maximum occupancy, visitor/daily use occupancy, parking limits, location of fire extinguisher, trash disposal, noise ordinance regulations, wildlife safety/protection, pet regulations/safety, exterior lighting, property boundary identified via a map or marking of the boundary corners, trespassing laws of Colorado, fire alarms/carbon monoxide detectors, proper disposal of cigarettes or other smoking devices, and no weddings or wedding related groups, large groups, parties, etc.  Noise Requirements – The current noise ordinances would apply and no additional requirements limiting use or time of use for outside activities would be required.  Minimum Age Requirement for Occupancy – All occupants, regardless of age, would be counted toward the two per bedroom plus two.  Proof of Insurance – No proof of insurance would be required for vacation homes.  Liability to Protect Neighbors – No requirement for liability signoff by renters to protect adjacent property owners would be required.  Local Contact Requirement for Manager/Owner - The application shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted by phone and be available twenty-four hours per day, with regard to any violation. The local contact or property manager shall respond to complaints within thirty minutes. The requirement should be the same for eight and under.  Approval Process – Utilize the current Special Review process outlined in the Estes Valley Development Code and develop a streamlined process for approval by the appropriate governing board with a public hearing. Items the Task force could not resolve and bring forward a recommendation include the following:  Number of Vacation Home per Neighborhood – The Task Force considered a motion to not establish a limit on the number of vacation rentals in a neighborhood and it did not pass. Those not in favor of the motion stated concern with the lack of enforcement and the change in the character of the neighborhood without a limit. Town Board Study Session – August 30, 2016 – Page 3  Maximum Occupancy – The Task Force confirmed there should be a maximum occupancy but was not able to establish consensus on the maximum. Through multiple motions and discussions, the highest maximum limit discussed was 20 occupants and the lowest maximum was 10. Concerns were raised in relation to the lack of enforcement, higher occupancy could lead to defacto rezoning of residential properties to commercial zoning, no mechanism in place to prevent current two and three bedroom homes from being renovated to include additional bedrooms and create large nine and above vacation rentals, and how many high occupancy vacation rentals should be allowed in close proximity before the neighborhood character would be negatively impacted. Staff requested direction from the Town Board and County Commissioners on whether or not to move forward with drafting code language to address the items outlined by the Task Force. If the items are to move forward, staff would prepare draft language for the Planning Commission to review at their October 18, 2016 meeting and recommend to the Town Board and County Commissioners during a joint public hearing on November 17, 2016. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS. Discussion followed by the elected officials and Planning Commission members on the recommendations and has been summarized: There was significant confusion on the need/purpose for grandfathering of nine or more, how they would be identified, and the impact the grandfathering would have; how the Town and the County would address the enforcement issue; questioned the justification for a Special Review process and suggested the Special Review process once a violation had occurred at a vacation home; a qualifier needs to be established for the maximum number of occupancy; questioned why accommodation properties were not speaking out against the establishment of larger vacation homes because these homes directly compete with accommodation businesses, yet do not have to meet the same requirements related to fire codes, ADA requirements, parking limits, landscaping, etc.; enforcement needs to be improved with the addition of software such as iCompass to provide a 24/7 violation hotline; and property managers need to be local and accountable if they do not respond to a complaint. DIRECTION TO STAFF. Comments from the group were heard and have been summarized: Commissioner Gaiter stated the Special Review process provides a mechanism to address vacation homes with violations through a show cause hearing and allows for the permit to be revoked. The new regulations provide a framework for which both the Town and County can begin to enforce violations. Commissioner Johnson agreed. He stated concerns with the grandfathering and the need to protect neighborhoods from the proliferation of vacation homes. He requested staff develop code language for the Planning Commission and governing bodies to review individually. Commissioner Donnelly commented on the good work of the Task Force and was pleased a number of the recommendations came forward with consensus. He agreed the individual Boards should review the recommendations and evaluate the issues individually. Trustee Norris stated concern with changes in some neighborhoods that have become defacto accommodation zoning district due to the number of vacation homes in the area. He agreed the grandfathering issue needs work, review the implementation of iCompass to improve code enforcement, address occupancy limits and develop improved criteria for Special Reviews. Community Development Director Hunt stated staff would develop code language to address the approved recommendations of the Task Force; however, staff would require additional time. He recommended bringing forward draft language for the Planning Commission to review at their November meeting. Planning Commissioner Moon suggested intermediate study sessions be held during the next two months to discuss and review proposed code language prior to the November Planning Commission meeting. Town Board Study Session – August 30, 2016 – Page 4 Administrator Lancaster provided a review of the next steps, including staff to draft code amendments on approved recommendations for nine and above and incorporate change for eight and under to insure consistency; undecided items would remain unaddressed until future discussion and direction is provided by the elected bodies; draft language would be reviewed by the Planning Commission in study sessions; staff would redraft language based on comments and discussions by Planning Commission; final draft language would be forwarded to the Town Board and County Commissioners for independent review and revision; Town and County staff would meet to discuss the changes and recommendations to address any differences; Planning Commission to review the final revised code language; and once a final recommendation has been provided by Planning Commission the code amendments would be presented to the Town Board and County Commissioners for final adoption. VACATION RENTAL TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS ON ENFORCEMENT. Ed Peterson/Town citizen and Task Force member reviewed a prepared statement outlining recommendations for enforcement. He stated there are few complaints in comparison to the number of vacation rentals in the valley. County Sheriff Justin Smith spoke to the Task Force and assured the group his Deputies would enforce the County noise ordinance and other zoning issues related to parking, occupancy and permitting. He commented guests need to be held accountable for their disregard to reasonable regulations. Recommended enforcement actions would include a $5,000 fine for properties not properly licensed/permitted by September 15, 2016 and a second offense would be an additional $5,000 fine and the property would not be allowed to operate for one year; a failure to list your license/permit number on advertising would be a warning for the 1st offense and fines thereafter; noise violations would be a spot fine to the subject renter; parking violations would be a spot fine to the subject renter; and hold managers and owners accountable if they are not responding to guest violations in a timely manner. He stated 70% of the Task Force would recommend counting individuals over the age two toward the occupancy limit. The Task Force strongly encourages the Town and County to contract with a 24/7 hotline service. The vacation rental owners and neighbors would request a representative of each have a role in developing the new regulations as they have a good working understanding of the industry. Jeannie Haag/County Attorney reviewed the legalities related to the County’s ability/inability to levy fines for items such as a violation to the noise ordinance, number of cars, occupancy, etc. There being no further business, Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk