HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2016-11-29 - Special MeetingPrepared: November 21, 2016
* Revised:
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 29, 2016
1:30 p.m. Board Room, Town Hall
1. OPEN MEETING
Planning Commissioner Introductions
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not
exceed three minutes.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes of November 15, 2016
4. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING ATTAINABLE
HOUSING QUALIFICATIONS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO WORKFORCE HOUSING
Staff: Director Randy Hunt
5. AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING VACATION
RENTALS
Staff: Director Randy Hunt
6. REPORTS
7. ADJOURN
The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda
was prepared.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
1
November 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry
White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon
Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, White, Schneider, and Moon
Also Attending: Community Development Director Randy Hunt, Town Attorney Greg White,
Town Board Liaison Ron Norris, County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording
Secretary Karen Thompson
Absent: Commissioners Hills and Klink
Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 60 people in
attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public
comment at today's meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not
necessarily the chronological sequence.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes, October 18, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.
B. Approval of Watson Minor Subdivision, Metes & Bounds parcel located at 625 W. Elkhorn
Avenue; William & Vivianne Watson, Owners; Request to create two lots of record from one
existing lot
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/White) to approve the consent agenda as presented and
the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
3. METES & BOUNDS PARCEL AND LOT 10, MOUNT VIEW PARK, TBD BIG HORN DRIVE;
PRENDERGAST RESUBDIVISION
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report, stating the request was to preliminary plat four
single-family residential lots zoned E1—Estate which are located both inside and outside the town
limits. The total area is approximately three acres in size. There are currently five legally non-
conforming parcels eligible for the resubdivision plat. There is one structure built across three of
these parcels and the town/county jurisdictional boundary line. The purpose of the request is to
create four legal lots, which would correlate with how the area has been developed. Planner
Gonzales stated a petition to annex has been submitted and will be reviewed on a date in the
near future. He stated the Planning Commission is the recommending body, and both the Town
Board and County Commission will be the decision-making bodies because the application is
being processed prior to annexation. The application was routed to all affected agencies and
adjacent property owners, and a legal notice was published in the local newspaper.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
2
November 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Planner Gonzales stated three of the four proposed lots are smaller than the minimum lot size
required for the E-1—Estate zone district. Therefore, the applicant applied for a variance to the
minimum lot size standard, and the Board of Adjustment granted the variance request on
November 1, 2016.
Planner Gonzales stated three of the four lots will each contain a single-family home, and the
remaining undeveloped lot will be eligible for future development. Staff has waived the
requirement for establishing a limit of disturbance for each lot since the majority of this area is
already developed. If any significant trees are removed, replacement is required. There is a
proposed 30-foot utility easement along the eastern edge of proposed Lot 1, to be recorded on
the Final Plat. The Light and Power Department will require easements for electric lines, both
above and below ground. A plat note stating the overhead utility easement across proposed Lots
1 and 3 shall be vacated if/when the overhead power lines at this location are moved or placed
underground to a new location. Planner Gonzales stated the Estes Park Sanitation District will
require a 30-foot easement for the existing sewer main. Regarding access, Planner Gonzales
stated the existing private drive will provide access to proposed Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. The property
to the north (not part of this application) shall also be granted access via this easement.
Concerning the annexation, Planner Gonzales stated the date for the resolution for the Intent to
Annex will go to the Town Board on November 22nd (tentative date), with the public hearing to
take place in early 2017. Portions of original parcels 2, 3, and 4 are located within the
unincorporated Estes Valley. These portions are owned by The Harmony Foundation. The
Harmony Foundation building was built over Lot 10, Mount View Subdivision and the eastern
portions of parcels 2 and 3. The annexation would bring these portions into the town limits,
allowing the building to be contained on one lot. The end result of the annexation will be two
legal lots within the town limits and two legal lots outside the town limits.
He stated staff is recommending approval of the resubdivision, with the following findings and
conditions:
Staff Findings
1. With the conditions of approval listed, this proposal will comply with all applicable
sections of the Estes Valley Development Code.
2. Adequate public facilities are currently available to serve the proposed resubdivision plat
area.
3. The proposed lot configurations meet minimum lot size requirements (Variance approved
on November 1, 2016 to reduce lot size requirements).
4. This request has been submitted to all applicable reviewing agency staff for consideration
and comment. No siginificant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff
relative to code compliance or the provision of public services.
5. All appropriate easements are conditioned to be placed on the preliminary and final plats.
Legal descriptions of these easements shall be placed on the final plat map.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
3
November 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Conditions of Approval
1. 30-foot utility/access easement for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and the property north of the subject
area shall be placed on Preliminary and Final Plat.
2. 20-foot overhead utility easement across Lots 1 and 3 shall be placed on Preliminary and
Final Plat with the note that this easement shall be vacated if/once the overhead power is
moved or undergrounded to a new location.
3. 10-foot utility easement along northern and eastern property boundary of Lot 4 and along
southern property boundary of Lot 3 shall be placed on Preliminary and Final Plat.
4. Remove language on Preliminary Plat that utility/access easement will be dedicated with
this plat. (Graphic easements are not dedicated with plats, but are recorded on plats along
with legal descriptions.)
Public Comment
Celine LeBeau/applicant representative was present and available for questions.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
There was a question about whether a condition regarding the annexation was necessary for this
application. Town Attorney White stated the annexation petition was submitted in accordance
with the requirements so no condition was necessary.
It was moved and seconded (Moon/Murphree) to recommend approval of the Prendergast
Preliminary Resubdivision Plat as described in the staff report with the findings and conditions
recommended by staff and the motion pass 5-0 with two absent.
4. AMENDMENT TO APPROVED SPECIAL REVIEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2016-01; LAZY B RANCH &
WRANGLERS; 1665 Spur 66
Planner Gonzales reviewed the staff report, including the timeline of all meeting dates,
Commission recommendations, and decisions by the Town Board. After the Planning Commission
recommended disapproval of the Development Plan, the Town Trustees conditionally approved
the plan. One of the conditions was the approval of a Variance for the loading area location. The
Estes Valley Board of Adjustment disapproved this variance request on September 13, 2016.
Because the variance was not approved, the proposed plan could not be approved as presented
and conditionally approved in July.
Planner Gonzales stated the applicant amended the original proposal to now include the loading
area location in the Phase 3 parking lot instead of alongside the building. The parking lot was
conditionally approved to be developed in Phase 3 of the project. The proposed loading area
would be approximately 115 feet from the center line of Mills Drive; thus not requiring a variance
and rendering the condition of approval inapplicable. Planner Gonzales stated screening will still
be required, and the applicant provided a new landscape plan, increasing the amount and type of
vegetation around the loading area to create a heavier screen. The new proposed loading area
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
4
November 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
would be screened by two sets of landscaping buffers instead of the one that is required. In
regards to the code provision stating a loading area cannot take up required parking spaces, staff
determined the development plan did not have a finite number of parking spaces required. A
parking study was conducted and a target number was determined. The proposed parking area
goes far beyond that target number without the spaces designated as both parking and loading
area. Staff found the proposed loading area would not be taking up required parking spaces.
Planner Gonzales stated staff recommended approval of the Special Review Development Plan
amendment. If approval is recommended, staff provided the following modifications to the
amended plan be part of the recommendation of approval:
1. Show the proposed loading area on all Phasing Plans
2. Show dimensions of loading area on plan set
3. Include note that loading area striping shall be done in Phase 3.
4. Add note on all Phasing Plans that the loading area shall not be used during hours of public
patronage.
Planner Gonzales stated all modifications would need to be completed prior to the Town Board
hearing on December 13, 2016.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Planner Gonzales clarified the loading area would not be paved throughout Phases 1 and 2.
Director Hunt stated staff would conduct spot checks to ensure the loading area was not being
used for loading/unloading purposes during their regular business hours. Planner Gonzales stated
the unloading/loading process would occur very similar to the unloading/loading process that
occurs on a regular year-round basis along Elkhorn Avenue.
Public Comment
Lonnie Sheldon/applicant representative stated the new loading area meets the requirements of
the Estes Valley Development Code and a variance was not needed. He reviewed the portions of
the code that he determined applied to this amendment. He stated the applicant would be willing
to construct a fence if the Commissioners requested such, for additional screening, although the
preferred screening was addressed on the revised landscape plan. The purpose of the screening
was to screen the loading area from Mills Drive and the neighbors across the street. Mr. Sheldon
stated the delivery trucks would not be backing across a street property line, and the occupied
loading area would not prevent access to a required off-street parking space. The parking lot will
be entirely on private property, and people using the lot will have permission to do so. He stated
the only way a delivery truck would be in the loading area during their hours of operation would
be if it was broken down, which was very unlikely. If the Commissioners so desired, the parking
area could be paved with Phase 1. He clarified the parking lot will be large enough for a large
truck to get in and out without issues. It was designed to handle fire trucks, and most delivery
trucks are smaller than fire trucks.
Celine LeBeau/Lazy B project manager stated an updated Landscaping Plan was submitted, and it
complies with the EVDC. She showed photos of the types of shrubs proposed, and stated while
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
5
November 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
only 6% coverage is required, the applicant would be installing on 7% of the lot. Over 100 shrubs
are planned when only 64 are required. In the winter, the foliage will not be as robust because
the leaves will drop. If the commission wants more screening during the winter months, the
applicant would be willing to replace some of the deciduous plants with some evergreen shrubs.
Prior to beginning the Public Comment section of the hearing, Chair Hull reminded those in
attendance the Commission is only able to deal with the new proposed loading area, and no other
part of the Lazy B Development Plan can be discussed. She requested the public comment be
limited to the loading area, and be no more than three minutes each.
Public Comment
Dave Shirk/Ascent Planning Solutions representing several nearby property owners presented a
letter to the Commissioners that was posted to the Town website as public comment. He
reviewed several potential adverse impacts if the project were allowed to continue. He did not
think the Planning Commission had the authority to approve or disapprove an amendment to the
approved Development Plan, and thought the amendment should be heard by the Board of
Adjustment. He stated there have been very few mitigation efforts to minimize the impact of the
loading area and overall use of the property. Mr. Shirk requested the Planning Commissioners
present findings and suggested conditions of approval to the Town Board.
Jay Vetter/county resident stated it was important to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible
the impacts to the neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to develop 15% of the total acreage
available. He stated there are other places where the loading dock could be placed. He suggested
the applicant use the existing entrance on Spur 66 and place the loading area on the other side of
the building, away from Mills Drive. He stated the applicants have made virtually no attempt to
meet with the neighbors, which has been very frustrating. Mr. Vetter encouraged the
Commissioners to recommend denial of the amendment.
Brian Gillam/nearby business owner stated the Lazy B hours or operation have not been provided.
If they decide to expand the business and have events during the day, he was concerned about
delivery schedules. He questioned how they would handle the matter if a car was left overnight in
the loading area. He thought the delivery drivers would go as close as possible to the building, and
may not use the specific loading area.
Lonnie Sheldon reminded the Commissioners the vote today is only for the change to the
proposed loading area, and the application as presented complies with the EVDC. He offered
three options: (1) pave the loading area in Phase 1; (2) put a fence on three sides; or (3) add
additional vegetation to the screened areas.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
6
November 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Comments from the Commissioners included, but were not limited to: concern about oil leakage
from delivery trucks contaminating the water; concern about whether the number of parking
spaces was adequate; concern there are no specified hours of operation; there are other options
for the loading area; a loading area is a requirement, and trucks park in the middle of Elkhorn
Avenue all the time without complaint; the issue at hand is very limited and the proposal meets
the aspects of the EVDC.
It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Moon) to recommend approval of the Amendment to
the Special Review Development Plan to the Town Board and Larimer County Commissioners
and the motion failed 3-2 with Commissioners Hull, White, and Schneider voting against and
Commissioners Moon and Murphree voting in favor of the motion, and two absent.
5. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Planner Gonzales stated the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County partnered in the mis-1990s to
develop the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan, which articulates a unified vision for both the
incorporated and unincorporated areas of the Estes Valley. The Comprehensive Plan includes the
vision for a Valley-wide trail system, which would be updated with the adoption of the 2016
Master Trails Plan.
The Estes Valley Recreation and Parks District (EVRPD) received a grant in 2013 to prepare a
comprehensive trails plan for the Estes Valley. Other supporters of the plan include the Town of
Estes Park, Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Valley Land Trust, Colorado Parks & Wildlife, US
Forest Service, Larimer County, Bureau of Reclamation, and the YMCA of the Rockies. The EVRPD
plans to update the plan on an annual basis, making this a living document.
Staff recommended the adoption of the Master Trails Plan into the Estes Valley Comprehensive
Plan. The EVDC requires dedication and/or construction of trails in accordance with the Estes
Valley Comprehensive Plan or any subsequently adopted hike/bike or open areas plan. Adoption
of this Master Trails Plan would provide authority to require dedication of trail easements or trail
construction. One possible disadvantage of adopting this plan could be that some developers or
property owners would prefer not to accommodate trails in the corridors shown on the plan.
Planner Gonzales stated the Planning Commission was the recommending body to both the Town
Board and the County Commission.
Public Comment
None
It was moved and seconded (Moon/White) to recommend adoption of the Estes Valley Master
Trails Plan as an element of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and the motion passed
unanimously with two absent.
6. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOMENT CODE RELATING
TO VACATION RENTALS.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
7
November 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Chair Hull stated public comment would be accepted at today's meeting. The Planning
Commission will listen to comments and have discussion today. Action will not be taken on this
item at today's meeting. A special meeting of the Planning Commission will take place on
Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. in the Town Board room, when a recommendation will
be made to present to the Town Board and County Commission. The Town Trustees and County
Commissioners have scheduled a joint meeting for Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 6 p.m. in the
Town Board room to discuss this issue.
Commissioner Moon stated discussion occurred at today's study session regarding a document
the Commissioners have been working on for several weeks, trying to find common ground that
would work politically for the Town Trustees and County Commissioners. He stated it was critical
for the Commission to retain the connectivity between the Trustees and Commissioners in order
to adopt a Valley-wide code that is operable. He stated this document is still in the draft stage,
and will likely change. It is posted online at www.estes.org/vacationrentals under the "Timeline"
drop-down box. The Planning Commission determined it was critical to have some common
ground and summarize what had been discussed for the last several months.
Town Attorney White suggested Commissioner Moon provide a brief overview of what was
discussed at study session for the benefit of the public in attendance that may not have been at
the study session.
Commissioner Moon stated the vacation rental (VR) situation was studied by zone districts. The
Planning Commissioner's jobs are to consider the planning and zoning aspects of VRs. Guest
accommodations are expected to be seen in the Accommodations and Commercial zone districts
(A, A-1, CD, and CO). VRs are not necessarily expected, but are also located in the Residential zone
districts (R, E, E-1, RE, RE-1, and RM). Looking at the Accommodations/Commercial zones, they
did not anticipate creating a cap on the number of VRs in these districts, but would recommend
an occupancy limit of two per bedroom plus two. He stated there is a real potential in this area
for implications of the International Building Codes to be applied to VRs. That is a decision to be
made by the Town Board, after hearing recommendations from the Estes Park Board of Appeals
and the Town's Chief Building Official, and is not in the purview of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Moon stated residential zone districts have unwittingly become guest
accommodation areas and in order to minimize neighborhood and affordable/workforce housing
impacts, were considering recommending a cap on the number of VRs allowed, based on the
current licensed/permitted residential VRs (390) times 15% to allow for growth. The cap being
considered is 450. Again, occupancy limits of two per bedroom plus two would be recommended.
The Commission did recognize, however, the presence of VRs with the ability to house nine or
more guests in residential zone districts, and acknowledged one of the recommendations of the
County-led task force was to set licensing/permitting by July, 2016, with those VRs that were
licensed/permitted being able to continue operating. (Note: Licensing occurs for VRs within the
town limits; permitting occurs for VRs outside the town limits, but within the unincorporated
Estes Valley) As recommended by the task force, those VRs licensed/permitted for nine plus
would be able to continue to operate as long as they met EVDC standards for lot size, setbacks,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
8
November 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
and code standards for safety from the International Property Maintenance Code, including but
not limited to smoke alarms, carbon monoxide alarms, egress windows, fire extinguishers, etc. It
is possible the Board of Appeals and Chief Building Official will recommend applying the
International Building Code to those vacation rentals with occupancies greater than eight. The
Planning Commission would recommend no new 9+ VRs be permitted in residential zone districts.
In other words, those homes existing today and meeting code requirements would be allowed to
continue to operate. Commissioner Moon stated a larger issue is still in flux: special review versus
standards. Maximum extent possible is difficult to define in the special review process. The more
practical process would be to go with standards; however, this is still being discussed. Regarding
licenses/permits, this would be the biggest transition for everyone involved. Effective January 2,
2017, a software program called Host Compliance (a subsidiary of iCompass) will be implemented
for the entire Estes Valley. Host Compliance will collect and track data, identify VRs via multiple
vacation-rental websites, accept "complaints" through a toll-free number, and provide monthly
reports and other data to the Town. All information collected will be available to the public. Based
on data collected, licenses/permits could be revoked for cause. Licenses/permits would be
forfeited if not renewed. New licenses/permits are available up to the cap limit. If you forfeit your
license/permit, you would automatically move to the bottom of the list. Commissioner Moon
stated the Commission was recommending three levels of enforcement. One of the biggest issues
with property owners is some property managers do not do a satisfactory job of management,
one of the biggest complaints in residential neighborhoods. Property managers are expected to
monitor, manage and enforce regulations associated with their properties. Law enforcement
(Town of Estes Park Police within town limits and Larimer County Sheriff in the unincorporated
Estes Valley) will take action on illegal activities. Code Compliance Officers interact with property
managers and law enforcement to bring offenders into compliance. Violators within town limits
may be taken to Municipal Court or District Court. Violators in the unincorporated Estes Valley
may be taken to the Board of County Commissioners or District Court. Regarding unlicensed VRs,
the town and county have given property owners almost two and one-half years to comply. It is
estimated there could be 200-250 VRs that are currently operating without licenses/permits.
Unlicensed/unpermitted VR property owners could obtain licenses/permits up to the cap limit.
The Host Compliance program would identify unlicensed/unpermitted VRs, which would allow
enforcement action. The idea behind the position statement from the Planning Commissioners is
to acknowledge the importance of VRs to the Estes Valley with the understanding that Estes Park
residents live here as part of a community, not strictly a resort. The many guests to the area
consider Estes Park a special place and want to feel like they are a part of the community while
they are here. Commissioner Moon reiterated that this document is still a draft, they have put a
lot of time and effort into creating it, and they hope it meets most of the community's
expectations.
Public Comment
Rex Poggenpohl/county resident thanked Commissioners Moon and White for creating the
position statement, stating it was the best thing produced thus far, and he appreciated the
Commissioners taking the initiative to create this document. The issues he had with his
neighborhood VR was late night noise, mostly from on-site weddings/receptions. Once the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
9
November 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
property owner disallowed wedding parties, the noise level decreased significantly. While
competent property managers are an important piece, the real problem is the inability of the
Town and County to control and enforce VRs. Once the Host Compliance program is up and
running, he suggested not making any changes until it has been used for one year.
Dave Shirk/town resident stated he had VRs and accessory dwelling units in his neighborhood and
none had problematic issues. Estes Park has always been a tourist destination and it will be
difficult to try to outlaw them, as they would just go "underground". He suggested VRs for nine
and over be required to obtain a staff-level conditional use permit. Appeals regarding the
conditional use permit would go to the Planning Commission.
George Leonard/county resident stated having a cap without an application process for new
prospective home buyers would directly impact local real estate values. It will be difficult for
buyers wanting purchase a home and use it as a VR to know if they will or will not be able to get a
license/permit if there is a cap limit. He stated certain restrictions on VRs will have a direct and
substantial impact on real estate values because people will not purchase a home if they do not
know if they could secure a license/permit. He stated the cap should be higher than 450 if the
goal is to get all VRs licensed. New buyers would perceive the low cap limit as a risk to being able
to obtain a license/permit.
Jay Heineman/county resident stated VRs do not fit in residential neighborhoods. He had doubts
about enforcement, and stated the disruption to the character of the neighborhoods was obvious
and also had a negative impact on workforce housing. He was opposed to VRs with occupancies
nine and over in residential neighborhoods. He supported a Valley-wide cap on VRs in residential
neighborhoods in order to have the ability to stop the growth. He stated the cap should be the
number of licensed/permitted VRs as of July 1, 2016.
Mick Scarpella/town VR owner stated his VR has five bedrooms and he has been operating it as
such. He was on the task force, and stated the decision about removing the one acre lot size was
predicated on the fact that the task force voted to grandfather all those VRs that were operating
with nine and over prior to July 1, 2016, with proper licenses/permits and paying the appropriate
taxes. The reasoning behind that decision was to go to one acre or setbacks or other defining
standard would be to unfairly knock some out and leave some in and possibly open the Town up
to lawsuits. Mr. Scarpella stated those grandfathered VRs would have to meet all the other codes
{building, fire, etc.) If lot size was a requirement, he stated most VRs operating with nine and
above within the town limits would be eliminated. He did not see anything in the proposed draft
about the ability to request a special review so the history of the property could be examined. He
asked the Commission to revisit the recommendations of the task force. He stated enforcement
was still an issue, but we needed to operate on the assumption that enforcement would happen.
Dean Norton/town VR owner stated he intends to retire in Estes Park, and purchased the home
for that reason. He currently uses the home on a part-time basis, and also uses it as a VR. His VR
could house more than nine people. If the minimum lot size of one acre becomes part of the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
10
November 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
regulations, his VR would be affected as his property is less than one acre. He stated the minimum
lot size regulation should apply only to new VRs. He stated he had no desire to rent his home
long-term as he would not be able to use it if it was rented year-round. If the lot size prevented
him from renting short-term, he would not rent it long-term. He suggested continuing the
discussion, and stressed that there are many people who are planning to live here full-time and
are renting their homes short-term on a temporary basis.
Bob Leavitt/county resident created a Google map with all licensed VRs. He lives in Carriage Hills,
and stated property owners know if their neighbors are using their home as a VR. He stated the
City of Durango uses this type of map to track their VRs, and suggested the Town of Estes Park do
the same. This could be used in addition to the Host Compliance program. He stated there are
plenty of people that want to move to the Estes Valley, but do not want to live next to VRs.
Chair Hull called a recess at 3:21. The meeting reconvened at 3:32.
Ken Arnold/town resident read a letter from Jane Livingston, a member of the task force and the
Estes Area Lodging Association. The task force was formed with the purpose of developing
recommendations for VRs housing nine or more occupants. Over 400 hours were spent by task
force members studying the issues. Eliminating well-managed larger VRs hurts the economic
health and viability of Estes Park. Estes Park's economy has been built on vacationing guests and
receives 60% of its income from tourism. Ms. Livingston encouraged the Planning Commission to
follow the task force recommendations. The Planning Commission's Draft Position Paper notes
the Town Board approved VRs as a "use by right" in 2010, but she had a copy of a 2004 ordinance
that allowed VRs in all residential zone districts. She stated in her letter the increase in licensing of
VRs was not an indicator of the increase in VRs, so using the licensing/permitting of VRs as a
measurement for actual numbers of VRs would not be accurate. She pointed out there are 25%
fewer real estate listings in 2016 than there were in 2010, and the shortage of homes in Estes
Park is not attributable to long-term rental homes being converted to VRs, but rather to the
health of the economy and the fact that there was very little new construction in Estes Park
during the recession.
Kaylyn Kruger/Estes Area Lodging Association (EALA) board member stated the EALA Board had
several concerns, including but not limited to: applying VR rules to commercial- and
accommodations-zoned properties would alter the calculations for occupancy; they did not
support a ban on VRs for nine and over; they did not support a cap of 450; they were concerned
about requiring inspections of VRs but not all properties; assuming the increase in
licenses/permits was due to an increase in VRs was incorrect; opposed the use of the building
codes as a method to shut down existing VRs.
Monica Myers/EALA representative read a letter from the EALA Board that will be posted on the
vacation rentals web page. EALA suggested earmarking a percentage of fees collected from VR
licensing to hire enforcement staff. According to Visit Estes Park, the number of accounts in the
last five years remitting taxes to Visit Estes Park has increased by 45%. The majority of that
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
11
November 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
increase can be attributed to VRs paying taxes, because there have not been many new
hotels/motels added to the existing inventory. EALA disagreed with Fred Mares comment, instead
stating the increase in VR was due to the town beginning to send out notices of violation to
unlicensed VRs. EALA stated the possible restrictions applied to VRs would not have a large
impact on the workforce housing shortage. It was EALA's opinion that it would be better to have
reasonable regulations and enforcement that supported the industry rather than take actions that
would encourage VR owners to go underground with their rental. EALA supports the requirement
of automatic fire sprinkler systems in new construction of full-time VRs accommodating nine and
above. They were unable to locate any municipality that requires the retrofitting of sprinklers or
alterations to meet ADA requirements. EALA supported all the task force recommendations.
Julie Pharis/town resident and property manager stated workforce housing and vacation rentals
are two completely separate issues. She agreed with George Leonard's comments.
Steve Ferrante/town resident agreed with Mick Scarpella, and last three letters that were read.
He was disappointed that the task force recommendations were not more heavily weighted. He
stated the proposed cap of 450 was far too low, given the number of guests that visit the Estes
Valley.
Mark Gunther/town resident stated a cap could protect the valley, but an idea to protect
neighborhoods would be to have a radius, with a limit on the number of VRs within that radius so
you do not have a large concentration of VRs in certain neighborhoods.
Ed Peterson/town resident stated VRs accommodating nine and above are not taking away from
workforce housing. He asked what happened to licensed VRs that sold to new property owners.
Town Attorney White stated the land use is tied to the land, and the use of the property transfers
with the title. He clarified the position document was a draft and revisions may need to be made.
Mr. Peterson stated VRs bring in a substantial amount of money to the Estes Valley.
Bettye Peterson/town resident stated the draft document was an excellent starting point. She
suggested the Commission consider the grandfathering of those VRs for nine and above that are
on lots smaller than one acre and have been operating very successfully without complaints. No
one wants to live next to a party house, and most of these are VRs with improper management.
She stated some long-term rentals are not property managed, either.
Millicent Cozzie/town resident stated the draft document saddened her, as it completely
obliterated the task force recommendations. She asked to be on the task force because she likes
to see multi-generational family reunions, which are typically more than eight people. She stated
the workforce housing issue needs to be kept separate from VRs. She stated VRs with multi-
generational family reunions will police themselves, with the elders of the group keeping the
youngsters in check. She was in favor of a cap for VRs with occupancies of eight and under. She
did not support a cap on occupancies of nine and above, stating the free market would cap that. If
a cap was established, it could be revisited after one year. She predicted the County
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
12
November 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commissioners would support the document. Her question to the Town Trustees would be "who
is going to run our town?" She was not comfortable with the County Commissioners telling the
Town of Estes Park what to do. She hoped the Commissioners could find a way to accommodate
VRs with occupancies of nine and above, both new and existing. The current document would
basically shut down the nine and above VRs.
Bernie Holien/county resident was supportive of the Host Compliance program to track the
numbers of VRs. Although there have been many comments about limiting VRs for nine and
above in residential areas, he stated the Commission has been more than generous, given the fact
that these large VRs have been operating illegally for many years. He stated the lot size
requirements make sense. If you are currently operating for nine and above on a lot that is less
than one acre, you could still continue to operate your VR for occupancies of eight and under. He
stated the Estes Valley has facilities for large groups, and those places should be used for such,
instead of having large groups in residential neighborhoods. He stated in tourist communities, the
market is trending to VRs rather than hotel/motel accommodations.
Bill Salms/town resident stated VRs were good competition for the hotel/motel industry, making
the hotels and motels give good customer service and charge fair prices. He owns a five bedroom
home that he rents as a VR on a part-time basis. They remodeled the house in order to have large
groups. He stated the property management company never advised him about the licensing
requirement. He stated a taking, without proper consideration under the law, is unconstitutional.
He questioned whether all the constitutional issues surrounding VRs would pass muster. He
stated there is a general Colorado law stating no local body corporate could restrict rental of a
private home. He encouraged the Commissioners to make sure all the constitutional rights are
met.
Deb Pierce/county VR owner that lives out of town stated when she travels she uses VRs a lot.
Today's traveler is changing, and prefers this type of accommodation. She recommended using a
percentage rather than a cap. She stated VRs should not be singled out for building code
violations unless all other commercial properties were also being inspected. She liked Bob
Leavitt's map and the reasoning behind it.
Seth Smith/property manager stated people seem to forget that VRs are a use by right in single-
family residential zone districts. He did not support a cap, stating the Town Board has already
rejected this idea, but the County Commission supports it. The potential downfall of a cap would
be fewer visitors, less tax collected, which would directly relate to fewer jobs. He stated a
workforce housing problem meant the economy was booming and people are hiring. He stated
there are a lot of jobs available in town and we are getting closer to a year-round economy. He
stated the economic impact from allowing people to rent their homes as VRs is greater than the
fallout the community would have if there were less visitors. He did not agree with a community-
wide map that is available to the public, as it opens up to criminal activity those VRs that are not
rented.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
13
November 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Tony Schetzsle/town resident stated there has been de facto rezoning to locate for-profit
businesses in neighborhoods. He stated the sense of community has a great potential for being
perforated by this glut of short-term vacation rentals. He understands the Commission is trying to
balance the needs of the accommodations industry with the needs of the residents to maintain a
sense of community and neighborhoods. He recommended short-term rentals in residential zones
must be the owner's principal residence, and the name of the VR licensee should match that on
the deed to the property. He stated VRs should be regulated by the International Building Code
with 24 months to comply. Fees for VRs should be dramatically increased. He stated it is time for
the County Tax Assessor to collect commercial property tax for VRs in the Estes Valley. He stated
residential zones need to stay residential zones.
Wes Hoffman/town resident agreed with Mr. Schetzsle. He did not agree with Mr. Smith's
statement that Estes Park would see a downturn in its economy if limitations were placed on VRs.
Estes Park has always been a tourist town, and he did not think the number of vacation rentals
now will make the different between a good town and a bad town. He supported the cap if it was
enforceable. He was concerned about Estes Park going too far to cater exclusively to outside
people. There are many things we could do to attract more visitors.
Mary Ann Salms/town resident stated her home accommodates more than nine people, and she
likes to think she makes her neighborhood better. Guest comments show their VR is a good
experience for those visiting Estes Park. She stated responsible VR owners make Estes Park better.
Public comment closed.
Staff and Commission Discussion
Commissioner Moon reiterated the document reviewed today is a draft. Comments received
today will be considered and reviewed and the draft will be modified as needed.
Commissioner Schneider stated all public comment today was appreciated.
Director Hunt stated the another public hearing would take place at a Special Planning
Commission meeting on Tuesday, November 29, at 1:30 in the Town Board Room. There will not
be a study session prior to the meeting. Draft code language will be presented. On a related
matter, the Estes Park Board of Appeals will meet on Thursday, December 1, at 4 p.m. in the
Town Board Room. They will be reviewing buildings codes as they relate to vacation rentals with
occupancies greater than eight. This Board can make recommendations to the Town Board. The
Town's Division of Building Safety and the County's Building Department communicate regularly
and attempt to align the codes whenever possible. Director Hunt stated a joint meeting between
the Town Board and the County Commission will be held Thursday, December 15, at 6 p.m. in the
Town Board Room. The Boards will hear any staff reports and public comments together, and
will hold separate official meetings if they choose to take action. He stated today's public
comment was useful and provided some insights he had not considered. Hopefully the next
meeting will bring closure to this issue. To date, staff has not provided a full-fledged
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
14
November 15, 2016
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
recommendation; however, staff will be prepared to provide a recommendation at the November
29th meeting. Staff will aim to seek a unitary recommendation as to how to move forward, and
will provide this recommendation to the Town Board and County Commission.
Commissioner Murphree stated there were many good and diverse opinions spoken today, from a
very intelligent group of people. He thanked the public for commenting on the issue.
7. REPORTS
Director Hunt had no comments regarding the reports listed on the agenda
There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 4:39 p.m.
Betty Hull, Chair
Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary
Staff Report
A
EP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Estes Valley Planning Commission
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: November 29, 2016
RE: Proposed Text Amendments to Estes Valley Development Code:
EVDC §11.4 (Attainable Housing Density Bonus)
Planning Commission Objective:
Review and recommendation on proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code (EVDC) §11.4 (Attainable Housing Density Bonus)
Code Amendment Objective:
The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to appropriately
revise regulations in the Estes Valley that address attainable and workforce housing, by
providing increased incentives and options for developments to fill this niche in the local
housing stock.
Proposal:
Amend EVDC Section 11.4 as stated in Exhibit A ["PC Draft"], dated Nov. 29, 2016,
attached.
Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of the language in
Exhibit A to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners.
Discussion:
The concept of this amendment has been developed over several months in
2016. The initial concepts were outlined in the Housing Needs Assessment in
2016, and were refined through discussion with the Estes Park Housing
Authority.
Although the arithmetic in the ordinance seems a little complex the basic idea is
straightforward: It would provide an incentive, in the form of increased density, for
properties that can demonstrate a commitment to provide housing units for
attainable and workforce housing.
The way this incentive would work in practice is essentially the Town and/or
County working in cooperation with the Housing Authority. The basic mechanism
is already in place and has operated with success in recent developments, such
as Falcon Ridge. If a given project provides housing for population that has a
certain threshold of housing economic need, as shown by stated maximum
incomes and proportions of income spent on housing, then that project can
develop to a higher density than the underlying base zoning would require.
Specifics of this amendment include:
• An increase in the income threshold from 60 percent of Larimer County
Average Median Income (AMI) for rented units, and 80 percent AMI for
owner-occupied units, to 150 percent AMI for both owned and rented
units.
• An added section to allow the alternative of demonstrating workforce-
housing fulfillment by providing affidavits and W-2 forms that establish at
least one household resident is employed in the Estes Valley.
• Any of the above mechanisms would be confirmed for a given project by
provision of the requisite information to the Housing Authority, who would
then confirm to the Community Development Department that the project
qualifies for density bonus. This confirmation would then be used in review
of plans and plats for development-code and/or building-code
administration and enforcement.
• The density bonus itself is increased from one-point-five (1.5) times base
zoning to two (2) times base zoning. In the RM District, for example,
density could go from eight (8) units per acre to sixteen (16) units per
acre.
In practice, this would not affect many properties. The need to establish eligibility
through the Housing Authority likely means that Housing Authority-owned or -
operated properties would be the main ones to qualify. The density bonuses
could in theory apply to any residential property, but the RM (Multi-Family)
District is the only district likely to see much development under the new
incentives — as is the case for most properties already developed. Staffs
understanding is that the Housing Authority's focus in past and present has been
multi-family housing, or similar-density projects such as condominiums.
This amendment will not solve the Estes Valley's housing attainability and
affordability issues by itself. That is a longer-term undertaking and will require
multi-pronged solutions. However, it does allow for a few specific projects (again,
mainly those affiliated with the Housing Authority or possibly similar entities) to
move forward.
Written November 21, 2016 Page 2 of 4
Staff Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
The text amendment complies with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments — Standards for
Review).
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review
"All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:"
1. "The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected;"
Staff Finding:
The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected. The 2016 Housing Needs Assessment supports this regulatory
approach.
2. "The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code
would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of
the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development
patterns in the Estes Valley;"
Staff Finding:
The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the
Estes Valley.
The code amendment aligns with both the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
housing policies and the 2016 Estes Park Housing Needs Assessment
recommendations.
3. "The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability
to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the
application were approved."
Staff Finding:
Providers of public water, sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and
transportation services have expressed no concerns with the proposed
amendment in principle. Specific project proposals will be reviewed at the
development-plan, subdivision plat, and/or building-permit stage(s) as needed to
ensure adequate public services and infrastructure can be provided.
Written November 21, 2016 Page 3 of 4
Advantages:
• Complies with the EVDC Section §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
• There appears to be a broad base of public support for addressing housing
attainability and affordability, especially in multi-family settings.
Disadvantages:
• There will be some administrative cost to approving and tracking incentive-based
housing development for staff and for the Housing Authority.
Action Recommended:
Review the amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a recommendation the
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners for a final decision to approve, deny, or approve with conditions.
Level of Public Interest:
High: Addressing housing attainability and affordability in the Estes Valley
Low: This particular Code amendment
Sample Motions:
APPROVAL
I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County
Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code as presented in Exhibit A, including findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and as recommended by staff.
CONTINUANCE
I move to CONTINUE this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning
Commission meeting because... (state reason(s) for continuance - findings).
DENIAL
I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County
Board of County Commissioners deny the text amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code as presented in Exhibit A, finding that . . . (state findings of fact for
denial).
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A: Attainable Housing Density Bonus
Written November 21, 2016 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT A
§ 11.4 - ATTAINABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS
A. Purpose. This Section is intended to create an incentive to provide a variety of
attainable housing for persons living and/or working in the Estes Valley. (Ord. 2-02 #9)
B. Eligibility. All residential subdivisions and developments in residential zoning districts
are eligible for the attainable housing density bonus set forth in this Section. (Ord. 2-02
#9)
C. "Attainable" Defined. For purposes of this Code and Chapter, "attainable housing
units" shall mean the following:
1. Renter-Occupied Attainable Housing Units.
a. Housing units that are attainable to households earning sixty-one
hundred and fifty percent (0;1%150%) of the Larimer County Area Median
Income or below, adjusted for household size, confirmed by the Estes
Park Housing Authority.
b. To qualify as attainable units, housing costs (i.e., rent and utility
expenses) must not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum income
for an imputed household size based on sixty percent (60%) of the
Larimer County Area Median Income, confirmed by the Estes Park
Housing Authority. The imputed household size is equal to one and one-
half (1.5) times the number of bedrooms in the unit, For example, rent on
a two-bedroom unit would be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the monthly
income limit of a three-person family; for a three-bedroom unit the rent
should not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the monthly income of a four-
and-one-half-person family - the midpoint of the range of a four- and five-
person family.
c. If the property owner does not pay all utility expenses, then a utility
allowance, computed by the Estes Park Housing Authority, must be
subtracted from the housing cost to determine the maximum rent. (Ord 2-
02 #9)
2. Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing Units.
a. Housing units that are attainable to households earning eighty one
hundred and fifty percent (80%150%) of the Larimer County Area
Median Income or below, adjusted for household size, confirmed by the
Estes Park Housing Authority.
b. To qualify as attainable units, housing costs must not exceed forty
percent (40%) of the eighty-percent Larimer County Area Median
Income, adjusted for household size, confirmed by the Estes Park
Housing Authority. (Ord. 2-02 #9)
3. Larimer County Area Median Income, Defined. The Larimer County Area Median
Income is the current applicable area median income for Larimer County published by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Ord. 2-02 §9)
3-4. Workforce Housing. Housing units shall be eligible for the Maximum Permitted Density
Bonus (Sec. 11.4.D) if at least one resident in each housing unit annually submits an
affidavit, including a copy of a W-2 form, to the Town and the Estes Park Housing
Authority certifying that the resident is employed within the Estes Valley Development
Code Boundary Map.
D. Maximum Permitted Density Bonus. Except in the R-1 Zoning District, subject to the
standards and review criteria set forth in this Section and Chapter, attainable housing units
are eligible for a density bonus of up to one and one -half (1.5) two (2) times (one hundred
fifty percent [150%]) of the base net density standard set forth in the Estes Valley
Development Code.
E. Development and Design Standards.
1. Minimum Lot Size/Area. Notwithstanding the minimum lot area requirements set forth
in the underlying base zoning district, the following requirements shall apply to
residential subdivisions and developments that include attainable housing units
pursuant to this Section:
a. Single-Family Detached Attainable Units. The minimum lot size for single-
family, detached attainable housing units included in a subdivision or
development shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, provided that at
least fifty percent (50%) of the total housing units in the subdivision or
development are attainable. If less than fifty percent (50%) of the total units
are attainable, then the minimum lot size shall be no less than seventy-five
percent (75%) of the underlying base zoning district lot area requirement.
b. Two-Family Attainable Units. The minimum lot size for two-family attainable
housing units included in a subdivision or development shall be twelve
thousand (12,000) square feet, provided that at least fifty percent (50%) of
the total housing units in the subdivision or development are attainable. If
less than fifty percent (50%) of the total units are attainable, then the
minimum lot size shall be no less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the
underlying base zoning district lot area requirement for two-family residential
uses.
c. Multi Family Developments Containing Atta inable Units.
al unite art
attainable, then the minimum lot size shall be no less, than seventy five
porsont (75°4) of the underlying base zoning district lot area requirement for
multi family residential uses.
2. Dispersal Roquirod. Attainable housing. units shall be dispersed within a residential . .
3.2.Public Sewers and Water Required. All developments containing attainable housing
units shall be served by public central sewer service and public water service.
4.3.Short-Term Rentals Prohibited. Attainable housing units shall not be rented, leased
or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days (see §5.1.B). (Ord. 02-10 §1)
544.Deed Restriction Required. Attainable housing units developed pursuant to this
Section shall be deed-restricted to assure the availability of the unit for sale or rent
to persons meeting the income or workforce guidelines and definition set forth in
§11.4.0 above, for a period of time no less than twenty (20) years. The mechanism
used to restrict the unit shall be approved by the Town or County Attorney.
(Ord. 13-99 §D.4, 11/3/99; Ord. 2-02 #9, 2/12/02; Ord. 8-05 #1, 6/14/05; Ord. 2-10 #1, 1/26/10)
Staff Report
A
EP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Estes Valley Planning Commission
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: November 29, 2016
RE: Proposed Text Amendments to Estes Valley Development Code:
Vacation Rentals
Planning Commission Objective:
Review of proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
§5.13.13 (Specific Use Standards: Bed and Breakfast Inn and Vacation Home), and
cognate sections as appropriate and necessary
Code Amendment Objective:
The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to appropriately
regulate vacation homes in the Estes Valley.
On August 30, 2016, a joint study session was held among the Town of Estes Park
Board of Trustees, the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, and the Estes
Valley Planning Commission. The joint study session was held for the purpose of
considering appropriate changes to the Estes Valley Development Code's (EVDC's)
regulations on vacation home rentals. More particularly, the session reviewed findings
of the Vacation Rental Task Force, as summarized in Larimer County Community
Development Director Terry Gilbert's 23 August 2016 memorandum, and also heard
from Task Force member Ed Peterson on issues regarding vacation-rental code
enforcement.
These groups on Aug. 30 came to consensus on the following:
a. Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) would take the lead in reviewing
proposed regulations, with Code amendments sent forward to the two governing
bodies after due consideration;
b. As an initial platform for discussion, the Estes Park Community Development
Department staff would draft Code amendments for subsequent review and
recommendation;
c. The staff would follow the recommendations of the Task Force in formulating
recommendations for the 9-and-over category, as a beginning-point for further
consideration;
d. Staff would incorporate prior direction from the March 30 draft for 8-and-under
regulations, as a beginning-point for further consideration;
e. The above tasks would take place on a timeline with staff-recommended code
language to be provided to the EVPC in October and November 2016;
f. Subsequent EVPC recommendations would be targeted for a joint Town Board /
BOCC public hearing and potential action in a December 2016 meeting.
Subsequent to the Aug. 30 meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) has
met three times so far to discuss vacation-rental Code amendments: October 18 (study
session); November 1 (special study session), and November 15 (study session, regular
meeting). The next, and presumably final, date for consideration of this matter is the
current meeting date, November 29, 2016. It is anticipated the outcome of the Nov. 29
EVPC meeting will be a vote to recommend changes to vacation-rental Code language.
It's further anticipated that this recommendation will go to a joint public hearing and
action joint meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and the Town Board of
Trustees on Thursday, December 15, 2016. Barring the unforeseen, staff expects that
this joint meeting will result in both bodies' adopting identical EVDC amendment
language.
It is possible that each jurisdiction will chose to modify its respective Building Codes to
address vacation-rental matters. Any such amendments would need to run on their own
timelines, not necessarily coinciding with timelines for the EVDC amendments.
Proposal:
Amend EVDC Section 5.1.B as stated in Exhibit A ["PC Draft"], dated Nov. 29, 2016,
attached.
Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of the language in
Exhibit A [PC Draft] to the Town Board of Trustees and the Board of County
Commissioners.
Discussion:
"PC Draft"
Exhibit A is a new (since Nov. 1st) set of draft regulations. Staff is referring to this draft
as the "PC Draft", to indicate that it is the anticipated final recommended draft that will
emerge from Planning Commission on Nov. 29.
This draft is discussed in more detail below under Planning Commission Discussion and
Position Paper.
"TF Draft"
Another draft, labeled the "TF Draft", is to be provided to the Town and County Boards
prior to the December 15 joint meeting. The TF [standing for Task Force] Draft has not
Written November 22, 2016 Page 2 of 14
been formally seen or reviewed by the Task Force, since that group no longer has a
formal existence; the Task Force's final meeting was Aug. 3. Therefore, the label "TF
Draft" should be considered shorthand for "draft that staff has created to reflect Task
Force findings".
Notwithstanding, staff from the Estes Park Community Development Dept. and Larimer
County Community Development Dept. have faithfully tried to represent in code form
the Task Force positions as specified in the 23 August memo and as discussed in the
August 30 joint meeting. The TF Draft does contain elements that go beyond specific
recommendations of the Task Force - primarily aimed at providing for appropriate
administration and enforcement, as would be done for every code amendment. The
label "TF Draft" is not intended to imply Task Force approval of the Draft - only to
indicate that it contains elements that parallel the Task Force memo.
The TF Draft is similar, but not identical, to the draft that Planning Commission saw in
your November 1 Study Session packets. The changes since then were made in
consultation among Randy Hunt, Linda Hardin, and/or Terry Gilbert; they are intended
to more fully reflect the Task Force's direction.
Per previous Planning Commission direction, the Commission is not being requested by
staff to make a recommendation on this TF Draft at the Nov. 29 meeting. Verbal
direction provided to staff at the EVPC's Nov. 1 study session indicated EVPC's wishes
to transmit only one EVPC-recommended Code amendment to the joint governing
bodies.
Staff is honoring this wish and not asking the EVPC to make a judgment call on the TF
Draft. However, in the interest of not disrespecting the time and effort the Task Force
put into their conclusions, staff is providing the TF Draft to the two governing bodies
prior to the December 15 joint meeting, for consideration on its own merits.
To be clear, staff is recommending Exhibit A, the PC Draft, for adoption. While the TF
Draft is not a bad solution, staff judges that it does have inefficiencies in some areas.
Staff concludes the PC Draft is the better option.
Planning Commission Discussion and Position Paper:
At the Nov. 1 EVPC study session, the Commission discussed the possibility of one or
more Planning Commissioners working on a position paper outlining and expanding on
the general directions identified at that meeting. Commissioner Moon took the lead on
preparation of a position paper, a draft of which was distributed at the Nov. 15 study
session and regular meeting.
Following public comment and further Planning Commission discussion at that meeting,
revisions to the position paper have been undertaken, also led by Commissioner Moon.
Written November 22, 2016 Page 3 of 14
The revised draft is to be included in packets and available publicly prior to the Nov. 29
EVPC meeting.
At the date of this writing (Tue., Nov. 22, mid-day), the revised draft position paper has
not been finalized and provided to staff. However, staff believes we have the sense of
direction imparted and have drafted the PC Draft language accordingly.
The following are understood to be key points in the position paper. To staffs
knowledge, the sections not in parentheses accurately summarize the draft Position
Paper.
(Staff comments are in parentheses.)
Residential vs. Accommodations/Commercial Zoning:
The position paper divides vacation rental regulations into two sub-sets: residential and
accommodations/commercial areas, both determined by specified zoning districts.
(Staff agrees that this division is reasonable and meets good planning and zoning
practice. Exhibit A identifies and somewhat refines the list of districts in each sub-set.)
Accommodations/ Commercial Zoning Sub-set:
• No cap is proposed in A, A-1, CD, and CO districts
• Position paper identifies occupancy maximum limits at two per bedroom plus two
additional occupants.
• Compliance with IBC [International Building Code (i.e., commercial code)] vs.
IRC [International Residential Code] is left to the Chief Building Official's
judgment in accordance with those codes and any amendments thereto.
(Staff agrees that no cap is necessary or appropriate in these districts. The IBC/IRC
distinction is a separate issue and we agree that it is appropriately left to the two Chief
Building Officials for the Town and County as staff leads.)
(Staff would propose what we believe is a simpler solution than defining separate
"vacation rental" use and standards in these districts — namely, defining "vacation rental"
in those districts to be identical with the already-existing use definitions for "Hotel/Motel"
and "Hotel, small". One or both of these uses is already allowed by right in the A, A-1,
and CD Districts. Staff proposes that "hotel, small" also be allowed in the CO District.
The only real difference between "Hotel/Motel" and "Hotel, small" is that the latter allows
no more than eight (8) guest rooms per establishment. This approach legitimizes all
vacation rentals in those districts as uses. Some development standards — e.g., parking
requirements — may not meet current commercial requirements in existing vacation
rental properties, but those should not be difficult to achieve on a collective basis. There
is no cap on hotels in these districts, and none is proposed by staff.)
Written November 22, 2016 Page 4 of 14
Residential Zoning District Sub-set:
• The position paper recommends an overall cap of 450 units in the eight
residential zoning districts in the Valley.
• A clear regulatory distinction is made between 8-and-under occupant VRs and 9-
and-over VRs.
• 8-and-Under: Occupancy limits per property are set at 2 per bedroom plus 2
additional (2 + 2 rule), maximum of eight.
• 8-and-Under: Other standards are as recommended by the Task Force.
• 9-and-Over: All existing units licensed for 9-and-over occupants within 30 days
after the effective date of the ordinance may continue as legally conforming uses.
After period of 30 days from the date of adoption, no additional 9-and-over units
are allowed in residential zones.
• 8-and-Under: Additional properties may be permitted as VRs, up to the overall
cap limit.
• All VR properties are regulated by their underlying zoning district standards,
relating to lot size, setbacks, and similar dimensional measures. Some may be
conforming; others may be legally non-conforming.
• No Special Review is required for any VR, regardless of occupant thresholds.
VRs up to the cap are permitted ["by right"] land uses in the specified districts. All
development standards will be those specified in the EVDC Code language.
(Staff agrees with the above residential-zone direction for VRs, except for two aspects:
(a) We recommend a period of 90 days, rather than 30 days, for licensing, with all
vacation rentals to become licensed by that time; and (b) we have made a specific
numerical recommendation for an overall residential-district cap at 588 units. The cap
issue is discussed in a separate section below.)
• (A key difference in the Task Force recommendations and the PC Draft is the
Special-Review requirements for 9-and-over VRs. The PC Position Paper and
the staff are in agreement that this mechanism is not feasible. The staff's reasons
are much the same as those given in the Position Paper, which need not be
repeated here.)
• (An earlier draft of the Position Paper suggested requiring all 9-and-over VRs to
adhere to all development standards, including minimum lot size and setbacks.
Staff concurs with the revised view that development standards for VRs should
Written November 22, 2016 Page 5 of 14
be interpreted as legally nonconforming if they are below current residential
minimums in the zoning district. There are technical legal arguments on both
sides of that question; however, the fact is that most property owners have little
or no ability to change some of these standards. For example, a %-acre lot owner
cannot enlarge the size of his/her lot without acquiring land from an adjacent
owner. No private owner can compel another adjacent owner to do that, as a
rule.)
Licenses/Permits — Initial and Annual Review:
• Business licenses (for properties in the Town) or operating permits (for properties
in unincorporated Estes Valley) will be required for all VRs, with annual renewal.
• There would be an initial period after the effective date of the ordinance, during
which all VRs, whether currently licensed or not, would need to be (re)licensed
under the new regulations.
• The iCompass service will be subscribed and sustained by the Town, with 50/50
funding split between Town and County, as an administration and enforcement
tool.
• Licenses/permits may be revoked for cause.
• Licenses/permits are forfeited if not renewed.
• New licenses/permits are available up to the cap limit.
• A 24-month grace period is envisioned for any VRs that need to meet IBC
requirements, but are otherwise in compliance, to build or modify structures that
will meet IBC. This in essence will be most if not all 9-and-over VRs, as few if any
of them have sprinkler systems and other IBC-required features in place
currently.
(Staff agrees with this general approach. A few additional specifics need addressed,
either in the code language, which we have done in the PC Draft, or in administrative
policies and procedures. These specifics include:)
• (The annual review cycle needs to be spelled out — not in the Code, but in
administrative policy. At this time, all VR licenses and permits expire on a
calendar-year cycle and are renewed between January and March. The Town
Clerk has indicated this is still feasible after adoption of regulations as proposed.)
• (Staff is proposing an initial licensing period of 90 days from the effective date of
the new ordinance. This 90-day period is aimed at striking a balance between a
Written November 22, 2016 Page 6 of 14
VR owner's legitimate need to decide whether the new regulations are in his/her
own best interest, and bringing closure for the neighbors and others who wish to
know what the house down the street will be used for.)
• (Proposed 2017 budgets for Town of Estes Park and Larimer County including
funding for the iCompass contract for one year, at approx. $25,000 for each. Both
Town and County should recognize that this is a permanent annual commitment,
including any cost increases — whether with iCompass or another equivalent
service. It is literally impossible to administer and enforce VR regulations as
proposed in the draft without such an external administration / enforcement
mechanism.)
• (A key point is that licensing/permitting - although required by law - is neither
necessary nor sufficient to sustain permanent classification of VRs as allowed
uses in their districts. In other words, a VR does not lose its land use status as a
VR just because the owner does not complete the license or permit process.
Failure to license does mean the VR cannot be rented or leased to VR occupants
during the lapse period, unless/until a new license or permit is obtained.
However, the underlying land use does not go away. If a license is not obtained
for a previously legal VR, we might think of the VR without a license as a
"dormant" VR — one that could be revived by the current or new owner.
Meanwhile, if a license/permit expires or is revoked for a period, the VR is out of
business for that period.)
• (As a qualifier to the preceding point: The only exception in which
licensing/permitting is required in order to confirm underlying VR land use would
be the initial licensing. Without an initial license, there is no way to demonstrate
in the first place that a VR existed during the initial licensing period. There are
other ways to go about that, but amending our Code to implement them will need
to wait for another day.)
• (Year 2017 licenses/permits: Staff is recommending a 90-day period for VRs to
become licensed under the new regulations in 2017. This is a critical length of
time for a number of reasons. To name just two: (a) It is the only way to
determine "new" versus "existing" VRs, which is a vital distinction to implement
the cap and also to establish a cut-off date for 9-and-over VRs; and (b) a
reasonable period will allow a reasonable process for owners to consider their
options and decide if the new regulations are aligned with their own plans. [A
third reason is that staff can't do all this licensing stuff at once, especially if site
visits and/or inspections are involved.])
Written November 22, 2016 Page 7 of 14
• (A key point to recall: At the present time, there are no vacation rentals in the
Estes Valley licensed for 9-and-over occupants — and there has never been a
license, or indeed any legal permission under zoning, to operate a VR at the 9-
and-over level. There are 90 "large occupancy" VRs licensed out there. We
casually refer to those as the "9-and-over" VRs in conversations, but that
terminology is flawed. The 90 VRs with licenses are in truth houses with 4 or
more bedrooms, which under the 2 + 2 rule, could be adaptable to 10 occupants
or more — but all of them have licenses for only 8 or fewer occupants. In this staff
discussion, we refer several times to "new" 9-and-over licenses, but that wording
isn't intended to imply permission for houses that are not already licensed to
obtain new licenses for 9 or more operation. As a practical matter, if the PC Draft
is adopted, a 2016 licensee with 4 or more bedrooms could come in and apply
for a 9-and-over license during the 90 days. It is unclear what options would be
available to someone comes in and asserts that they had a 9-and-over VR during
2016 with no license.)
• (The 24-month grace period for VRs to comply with building codes would need to
be administered separately from the 90-day licensing period. Staff would suggest
that 9-and-over VRs licensed within the 90 days will have the remaining 21
months to install any required improvements. This is not only more
straightforward to administer; it also doesn't set a prospective VR owner up to
install a lot of fancy hardware, only to discover at the end that they do not get to
rent the dwelling at the expected capacity.)
• (The above notwithstanding: Staff would caution that nothing in the EVDC can or
should compel the Chief Building Official in either jurisdiction to make a
determination on the distinction between and IRC and an IBC structure. Only the
adopted Building Codes, and any local amendments thereto, can do that.
Amending the Building Codes via local option is feasible, but that question is
outside the purview of the Planning Commission.)
Enforcement:
The Position Paper identifies three levels of enforcement: Property managers, law
enforcement entities, and code officials.
• Property managers are identified as the "front-line" enforcers. Each VR
license/permit application will be required to have signatures from both property
owner and property manager. The latter signature, along with the underlying
Code authority, will hold the manager accountable.
Written November 22, 2016 Page 8 of 14
• Law enforcement in the appropriate jurisdiction (Town of Estes Park Police Dept.
or Larimer County Sheriffs Office) would handle violations for the same aspects
they handle now. This includes noise, on-street parking, trespassing, and others
— basically, any violation not covered in the EVDC or the Building Codes.
• Code compliance (EVDC) will be handled by the Town's Code Compliance
functions in the Community Development Dept.
• Court jurisdiction for issues that escalate beyond warning level will be handled by
the court(s) of competent jurisdiction — the same as right now.
• iCompass will be the primary data-gathering tool and also the primary point of
contact for those making complaints.
(Staff believes this is workable in principle. There are many administrative details to
work through, to be sure. For example, protocols will have to be established among
local Community Development staff, the Town Clerk's office, iCompass, and our
Dispatch Center on "who does what" when a complaint comes in, when a new VR is
licensed, and so on.)
Valley-Wide Cap Issue:
This has been one of the more contentious governmental issues in the vacation-rental
discussion between the Town and County. Staff's understanding is that consensus has
been difficult to find on whether an overall cap — i.e., a maximum number of vacation
rentals in the Valley -- is appropriate.
Staffs recommendation on this matter comes from a point of view that is around 90
percent pragmatic We recommend a cap in the following paragraphs, and we explain
how and why the cap number was chosen. But first, a few reasons why a cap is
appropriate:
• Failure to adopt regulations [again] is not an acceptable option. The Estes Valley
has a problem with lack of adequate regulations for vacation rentals - right here
and right now. Not adopting regulations, or failing to agree on appropriate
regulations, perpetuates this problem.
• Failure to adopt also does not end the community dialog. In fact, adopting
regulations won't end it, either. But meaningful regulations that are clear, can be
administered, and can be enforced is a good basis on which to discuss and
review how the phenomenon is happening, and to craft revisions or adjustments
to regulations as needed. Continual revision of regulations is not a good thing, as
regulations should provide a stable platform for individual decision-making. But
Written November 22, 2016 Page 9 of 14
any large, complex set of regulations needs to be reviewed periodically, to see if
it is working.
• A cap that allows upward adjustment is about the only "compromise" outcome
here. If anyone can think of another middle ground, we'd like to hear about it. We
can't.
We recommend a cap at 588 VRs in the residential zoning districts. Our reasoning is as
follows:)
• A rational basis is needed for a cap — i.e., anchored in "real world" data.
• iCompass has provided an estimate of approx. 750 VRs in the Valley, including
licensed and unlicensed VRs.
O Approx. 78.3% of licensed/permitted VRs in the Valley are in the eight residential
districts.
Assuming similar proportional distribution in residential vs. non-residential
unlicensed/unpermitted VRs, we would expect approx. 78.3% of the 750 iCompass VRs
to be in residential districts, which results in approx. 588 VRs [750 * 0.783 = 587.349...]
This allows for all currently licensed residential-district VRs to remain licensed, if they
choose to do so. It allows for all the VRs who may be operating in the shadows to also
become legal, if the iCompass estimate is reasonably accurate, which we think it is. It
does not allow for very many new VRs to come online in future — again assuming
iCompass is correct and that the cap remains unchanged.
Split Town / County Jurisdiction:
Staff agrees with the Planning Commission position, articulated in previous meeting and
in the Position Paper, that it would be most unfortunate if the Town and County were to
wind up adopting separate vacation-rental regulations. Doing so would violate the
integrity of the Estes Valley Development Code.
At this time, except for three relatively modest exceptions, the EVDC is the applicable
code for all land use regulations in the Valley. This approach has served us well for
approx. 16 years. That is the case not only for the two local governments, but for our
citizens.
"Integrity" may seem like an abstract argument, but there are practical difficulties as well
if the vacation-rental code is split into Town and County. For just one example, the
regulations refer to specific zoning districts in the EVDC. The Town of Estes Park and
Larimer County have different zoning district classifications, uses, and development
standards. The Town has an RM District, but the County does not; the County has a T
Written November 22, 2016 Page 10 of 14
(for Tourist) District, but the Town does not. Issues like these make it impossible to
adopt slightly different versions of the code language.
If interest exists or emerges in adopting different code provisions for Town and County,
the only way to accomplish that is to continue (table) the matter for some possibly major
rewrites. Town Community Development staff would estimate at least three months to
come up with a suitable draft. We (Town staff) would not be in a position to estimate a
timeline for County staff to work on their code.
Finally, in good planning practice, any major change in a set of regulations should be
remanded to the Planning Commission for input. This factor should be accounted for in
any timeline involving a possible split.
Staff strongly recommends that the unitary nature of land-use regulations ought to be
retained. If that means compromises in the final product, then compromises should be
made.
Staff Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
The text amendment complies with EVDC §3.3D (Code Amendments — Standards for
Review).
§3.3.0 Code Amendments, Standards for Review
"All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:"
1. "The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected;"
Staff Finding:
The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected. Vacation rentals in the Estes Valley have been a rapidly growing land-
use phenomenon, by all reports. The 2016 Housing Needs Assessment and the
charge followed by the Task Force are two elements in support of the regulatory
approach.
2. "The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code
would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of
the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development
patterns in the Estes Valley;"
Staff Finding:
Written November 22, 2016 Page 11 of 14
The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the
Estes Valley. A development plan is not required.
The code amendment aligns with both the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
housing policies and the 2016 Estes Park Housing Needs Assessment
recommendations.
3. "The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability
to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the
application were approved."
Staff Finding:
The proposed code amendment was discussed with providers of public water,
sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and transportation services.
Providers expressed no concerns with the proposed amendment. Law
enforcement matters were discussed by Sheriff Smith at the July Task Force
meeting, with no identified significant issues. Additional protocols will have to be
established with internal and external parties to ensure proper administration.
Advantages:
• Complies with the EVDC Section §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
• There appears to be a broad base of public support for addressing vacation rentals.
• The Position Paper and the PC Draft strike what staff and the Planning Commission
believe to be a good balance between the rights and privileges of individual Vacation
Rental property owners and managers, the rights and privileges of those adjacent
and nearby to any given Vacation Rental, and the needs and wishes of the
community as a whole.
Disadvantages:
• Increasing regulations will have costs associated with administration and
enforcement. One specific such cost is the virtual necessity of outside monitoring,
such as via the iCompass service. This is built into the Town and County budgets
beginning in 2017; expenses will be ongoing. It is almost certain that at some point,
additional staff and other resources will be needed in Community Development and
perhaps other departments (Town or County) as well. It is possible these
staffing/resource needs will not be permanent, as initial implementation of the
regulations will have a finite timeline.
Written November 22, 2016 Page 12 of 14
• Numerous arguments have been made on how to regulate vacation rentals. These
run the full spectrum, from allowing vacation rentals with only minimal regulation, to
banning them altogether. There are resort/destination communities in various parts
of the U.S. that have taken each of these extreme approaches... and just about all
points in-between. Staff would suggest that moderation is a cautious and positive
approach here. We believe the PC Draft reaches this goal.
Action Recommended:
Review the PC Draft text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development
Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a
recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board
of County Commissioners for a final decision to approve, deny, or approve with
conditions.
It is staff's recommendation that that Exhibit A ["PC Draft'] be recommended for
approval as drafted.
Level of Public Interest:
High: Addressing vacation rentals in the Estes Valley
High: Code amendment
Sample Motions:
APPROVAL
I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County
Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code as presented in Exhibit A (PC Draft), including findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and as recommended by staff.
CONTINUANCE
I move to CONTINUE this agenda item to the next regularly scheduled Planning
Commission meeting because... (state reason(s) for continuance - findings).
DENIAL
I move to recommend that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County
Board of County Commissioners deny the text amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code as presented in Exhibit A (PC Draft), finding that . . . (state findings
of fact for denial).
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A [PC Draft], Draft Estes Valley Code Amendment [Vacation Rentals]
("Redline-strikethrough" version, to show edits from currently adopted code)
Written November 22, 2016 Page 13 of 14
2. Exhibit A [PC Draft], Draft Estes Valley Code Amendment [Vacation Rentals]
("Clean" version with all changes made)
3. Memorandum to Board of County Commissioners and Town of Estes Park Trustees,
from COL Robert "Terry" Gilbert (ret.), AICP, Director, Larimer County Community
Development Dept., dated 23 August 2016.
4. Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the Town Board, Larimer County
Commission, and Estes Valley Planning Commission — 30th day of August, 2016.
5. Estes Valley Vacation Rental Data v2.0 [Fred Mares's data 2016-11-09 handout]
6. Map: "Vacation Homes in Commercial/Accommodations Zone Districts" [printed
11/18/2016]
7. Map: "Vacation Homes in Residential Zone Districts" [printed 11/18/2016]
8. Public comment to date
NOTE: The items provided to Planning Commission for your Oct. 18, Nov. 1, and Nov.
15 meetings are still valid and applicable! If you left your copies in your binders, they will
be left in place. If you removed your copies from your binder, please bring to each
subsequent meeting. This will assist in conserving paper and reducing our copying and
supply costs — thank you.]
Written November 22, 2016 Page 14 of 14
EXHIBIT A
[PC DRAFT]
Estes Valley Development Code
Draft Text Amendment: Sec. 5.1.B (Vacation Home)
November 29, 2016 — PC Draft (Planning Commission)
§5.1 SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS
B. Bed-and-Breakfast4nn-an-d-Vacation Home.
1. All bed an-d breakfast inns and vVacation homes in any residential
zoning district (defined herein as zoning districts A, A-1, CD, CO, E, E-
1, R, R-1, R-2, RE, RE-1, and RM) shall be subject to the following (see
§5.1.B.2 and §5.1.B.3 for additional regulations):
a. Annual Operating Permit.
All bcd and breakfast inns and vacation homes, all hotels/motels
operating as vacation homes, and all small hotels operating as vacation
homes shall obtain an operating permit on an annual basis. If the property
is located within Town limits, the business license shall be considered the
operating permit. If the property is within the unincorporated Estes Valley,
an operating permit shall be obtained from the Town of Estes Park Town
Clerk's Office.
(2) Vacation home operating permits in residential zoning districts as defined
herein shall be held at a total of 588 in effect at any given time. This cap shall
be reviewed annually by the Planning Commission and governing Boards, on
or near the anniversary of the effective date of this Ordinance. Applications
received after the designated cap is met shall be held and issued in the order
they are received as operating permits may become available. Permits that
have been revoked for a period of twelve (12) months or more shall reapply
and be placed in the queue if the reapplication date falls in a period during
which the cap is met. Permits not renewed when due shall be forfeited.
Vacation homes, hotels/motels, and small hotels in non-residential zoning
districts, shall not be included in this cap.
(-24(3)Local Representative. The permit shall designate a local resident or local
property manager of-in the Estes Valley who can be contacted by telephone
and is available twenty-four (24) hours per day, with regard to any violation
of the provisions of this Section. The local representative shall have
the capability to respond to complaints on site within thirty
(30) minutes. The person set forth on the application shall be the
representative of the owner for all purposes with regard to the operation of
the be.€1-a-1:1-El-bfeakfast-i-n-n-er--vacation home. The property owner and the
designated local representative shall sign the license or permit application
acknowledging all vacation home regulations. If the local representative
changes, it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to notify the Town
Clerk within fifteen (15) days of change, and to insure the new local
representative is knowledgeable of all vacation home regulations.
(4) State Sales Tax License. A condition of issuance of the annual operating
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Rentals — Exhibit A ["PC Dra
November 29, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
Page 1 of 6
permit shall be proof of a current sales tax license.
4)(5) Violations. The relevant Decision-Making Entity may deny or withhold the
renewal of an Annual Operating Permit until an alleged violation related to
such properly, use or development is corrected, in accordance with
§12.4.A.1. The relevant Decision-Making Entity may revoke the Annual
Operating Permit at any time in accordance with §12.4.A.2. Appeals to this
section shall be made in accordance with the appeals process in the Estes
Valley Development Code. Nothing described herein shall limit the Town or
County, within their respective jurisdictions, from exercising other remedies
and enforcement powers pursuant to Chapter 12 of this Code.
b. Estes Park Municipal Code. Properties located within the Town of Estes Park
shall comply with all the conditions and requirements set forth in the Town of Estes
Park Municipal Code, Chapter 5.20.
c. Residential Character. Bed and breakfast inns and v V acation homes
in residential zone districts as those districts are defined herein shall not be
designed or operated in a manner that is out of character with residential use of a
dwelling unit by one household. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Except in the CD district, dDesign shall be compatible, in terms of
building scale, mass and character, with low-intensity, low-scale residential
use.
(2) Guest rooms shall be integrated within the bed and breakfast i er-YaGation
home.
4)(2)Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential
use. No kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in the guest rooms.
th.41.4•6•1•1
(5)1No changes in the exterior appearance shall be allowed to accommodate
each beel-a44€4-lar-eakfa6t-i1414-ef-vacation hom
per-Frvitted.
d. Postings.
(1) Vacation homes shall have a clearly legible notice posted on-site, containing
at a minimum the following:
(a) The physical address of the vacation home and business license/operating
permit number;
(b) Name and telephone number of the local representative and property
owner;
(c) Maximum number of occupants allowed overnight;
(d) Maximum number of vehicles allowed parked outside; in designated off
street parking areas;
(e) Refuse disposal instructions;
(f) Location of fire extinguishers;
(o) Outdoor fire regulations;
(h) Domestic animal regulations
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Rentals — Exhibit A f"PC Dra
November 29, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
Page 2 of 6
(2) Property Line Boundaries: Property owner or local representative shall inform
all occupants of property boundaries;
(3) Property owner or local representative shall include in all print or online
advertising the license or permit number in the first line of the property
description.
(4) Advertising shall accurately represent the permitted use of the property.
Inaccurate or false advertising shall be a violation.
(5) Neighbor Notification. Upon issuance of initial Annual Operating Permit, the
owner or local contact shall be responsible for mailing a written notice.
(a) Notice shall be mailed, with certificate of mailing or other method as
approved by staff, to the owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet
of the subject property.
(b) Notices shall provide a name and telephone number of the local
representative and property owner. Any change in the local representative
or property owner shall be furnished to the Community Development
Director and owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the
subject property within two (2) weeks of the change.
(c) Mailing certificates shall be provided to the Community Development
Director upon issuance of initial Annual Operating Permit.
(d) Vacation homes legally existing as of the effective date of this code shall be
required to send written notice pursuant to §5.1.B.1.d.(5).
eke. Parking.
(1) Minimum Required Parking. Except in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning
dietnetr4The number of parking spaces available to a dwelling unit housing a
bed and breakfast inn or vacation home shall not be reduced to less than two
(2).
(2) Maximum Allowed Parking. No more than three (3) vehicles shall be parkod
•• • 'Z.' • • Z •
towards this--Fnaximum. On stroot parking shall be prohibited. Refer to
§5.2.B.2.f, which may further limit the number of vehicles permitted on site.
Unless otherwise permitted by this Chapter, parking shall comply with
§5.2.B.2.e.
e,f. Employee Housing Units. Employee housing units shall not be rented, leased or
furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See §5.2.C.2.a).
f. Attainable Housing Units. Attainable housing units shall not be rented, leased or
furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See §11.Y1.E).
g. Accessory Dwelling Units. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not be
permitted on residential lots containing an accessory dwelling. (See also §5.2.B.2.a,
which prohibits rental of accessory dwelling units regardless of the length of tenancy).
h. CD-District. In the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, such use shall not
be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue.
i,h. Density. Only one (1) vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall be
permitted per residential dwelling unit.
2. Any vacation homes in a non-residential zoning district (defined herein as all zoning
districts except those listed in Sec. 5.1.B.1), shall be defined and classified as either a
"Hotel/Motel" or a "Hotel, Small" (as those categories are defined in Chapter 13.
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Rentals — Exhibit A ["PC Ora
November 29, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
Page 3 of 6
Definitions), and subject to regulations therefor. In the case of any conflict with the
"Hotel/Motel" or "Hotel, Small" regulations and the regulations in Sec. 5.1.B, the
"Hotel/Motel" or "Hotel, Small" regulations, as the case may be, shall control.
2. All bed and breakfast inns shall also be subject to the-fellowing:
a-. Occupancy.
(1) Maximum Occupancy. No more than eight (8) guests shall occupy a bed and
breakfast inn at any one time. This maximum allowable occupancy shall be
• - •• -e e ". "-" 2
(2) Numbor of Parties, Bed and Breakfast Inns. Bod and breakfast inns may be
ce
b. Home Occupations. Home occupations may be operated on the site of a bed and
guests, such as performing small weddings or offering classes/workshops to
e,a. Meal Service. Bcd and breakfast inns m
guests: however, meals shall not be provided to the general public.
3. All vVacation homes shall also be subject to the following:
a. Occupancy.
(1) Maximum Occupancy. N o more than eight (8)
home at any one time. Maximum allowable occupancy in all residential
districts shall be eight (8) occupants. This maximum allowable occupancy
shall be further limited by a maximum of two (2) individuals per bedroom plus
two (2) individuals. For purposes of this section, bedroom is defined as a
sleeping space pursuant to the currently adopted and applicable International
Building Codes.
.(2) Number of Parties; Vacation homes in residential zone districts as those
districts are defined herein shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more
than one (1) party, occupying the vacation home as a single group_.
(2-)OlOwners of the vacation home in residential zone districts as those districts
are defined herein shall not be permitted to occupy the vacation home while a
party is present.
b. Home Occupations. Home occupations shall not be operated on the site of a vacation
home, nor shall vacation homes offer ancillary services to guests.
c. Vacation rentals shall be required to meet applicable Building, Health and Fire codes.
la,d. Initial Time Frame for Compliance. All vacation homes in every zoning district shall
be required to obtain a new or renewed, as the case may be, operating permit by a
deadline no later than ninety (90) days from the effective date of this Ordinance.
(Ord. 02-10 §1)
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Rentals — Exhibit A I"PC Dra
November 29, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
Page 4 of 6
Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-4
Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
"P" = Permitted by Right Additional
"5" = Permitted by Special Review Regulations
—" = Prohibited (Apply in All Districts
Use Specific A A-1 CD CO 0 CH 1-1 Unless Otherwise
Classification Use Stated)
Low-Intensity
Accommodations
Vacation
Home
—P P P —P — — _ §5.1.B. In CD, such
use shall not be
located on the ground
floor of a building
fronting on Elkhorn
Avenue. (Ord. 02-10
§1)
§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
Table 5-2
Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Accessory Use
Residential Zoning District
"Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted
"CUP" = Conditional Use Permit Additional
Requirements A A-1 CD CO 0 CH I-1
Vacation Homo No Yoe 1/cc NG No Ne No 4-544
In CD, such use shall
not-be-leeat-ed-on-t44e
floor ground of a
building fronting on
Elkhorn Avenue.
02 10 §1) .(Ord.
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Rentals — Exhibit Ai"PC Dra
November 29, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
Page 5 of 6
§ 12.7 - ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
A. Nonemergency Matters.
In the case of a violation of this Code that does not constitute an emergency or require immediate
attention, written notice of the nature of the violation shall be given to the property owner, agent,
occupant or the Applicant for any relevant permit. Notice shall be given in person, or by certified
U.S. Mail, or by posting notice on the premises. The notice shall specify the Code provisions
allegedly in violation, and—unless a shorter time frame is allowed by this Chapter—shall state
that the individual has a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of the receipt of the notice in
which to correct the alleged violations before further enforcement action shall be taken. The
notice shall also state any appeal and/or variance procedures available pursuant to this Code.
The Board of Trustees or Board of County Commissioners, as applicable, may grant an
extension of the time to cure an alleged violation, up to a total of ninety (90) days, if the
Board finds that due to the nature of the alleged violation, it reasonably appears that it
cannot be corrected within fifteen (15) days. (Ord. 2-02 #3)
This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption by the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Estes Park or the Board of Larimer County Commissioners, whichever may occur last.
Estes Valley Development Code Page 6 of 6
Vacation Rentals — Exhibit A ["PC Dra
November 29, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
EXHIBIT A
[PC DRAFT]
Estes Valley Development Code
Draft Text Amendment: Sec. 5.1.B (Vacation Home)
November 29, 2016 — PC Draft (Planning Commission)
§5.1 SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS
B. Vacation Home.
1. Vacation homes in any residential zoning district (defined herein as
zoning districts A, A-1, CD, CO, E, E-1, R, R-1, R-2, RE, RE-1, and
RM) shall be subject to the following (see §5.1.B.3 for additional regulations):
a. Annual Operating Permit.
(1) All vacation homes, all hotels/motels operating as vacation homes, and all
small hotels operating as vacation homes, shall obtain an operating permit
on an annual basis. If the property is located within Town limits, the
business license shall be considered the operating permit. If the property is
within the unincorporated Estes Valley, an operating permit shall be
obtained from the Town of Estes Park Town Clerk's Office.
(2) Vacation home operating permits in residential zoning districts as defined
herein shall be held at a total of 588 in effect at any given time. This cap shall
be reviewed annually by the Planning Commission and governing Boards, on
or near the anniversary of the effective date of this Ordinance. Applications
received after the designated cap is met shall be held and issued in the order
they are received as operating permits may become available. Permits that
have been revoked for a period of twelve (12) months or more shall reapply
and be placed in the queue if the reapplication date falls in a period during
which the cap is met. Permits not renewed when due shall be forfeited.
Vacation homes, hotels/motels, and small hotels in non-residential zoning
districts, shall not be included in this cap.
(3) Local Representative. The permit shall designate a local resident or local
property manager in the Estes Valley who can be contacted by telephone
and is available twenty-four (24) hours per day, with regard to any violation
of the provisions of this Section. The local representative shall have
the capability to respond to complaints on site within thirty
(30) minutes. The person set forth on the application shall be the
representative of the owner for all purposes with regard to the operation of
the vacation home. The property owner and the designated local
representative shall sign the license or permit application acknowledging all
vacation home regulations. If the local representative changes, it shall be the
responsibility of the property owner to notify the Town Clerk within fifteen (15)
days of change, and to insure the new local representative is knowledgeable
of all vacation home regulations.
(4) State Sales Tax License. A condition of issuance of the annual operating
permit shall be proof of a current sales tax license.
Estes Valley Development Code Page 1 of 5
Vacation Rentals — Exhibit A ["PC Dra
November 29, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
(5) Violations. The relevant Decision-Making Entity may deny or withhold the
renewal of an Annual Operating Permit until an alleged violation related to
such property, use or development is corrected, in accordance with
§12.4.A.1. The relevant Decision-Making Entity may revoke the Annual
Operating Permit at any time in accordance with §12.4.A.2. Appeals to this
section shall be made in accordance with the appeals process in the Estes
Valley Development Code. Nothing described herein shall limit the Town or
County, within their respective jurisdictions, from exercising other remedies
and enforcement powers pursuant to Chapter 12 of this Code.
b. Estes Park Municipal Code. Properties located within the Town of Estes Park
shall comply with all the conditions and requirements set forth in the Town of Estes
Park Municipal Code, Chapter 5.20.
c. Residential Character. Vacation homes in residential zone districts as those
districts are defined herein shall not be designed or operated in a manner that is
out of character with residential use of a dwelling unit by one household. This
includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Design shall be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and
character, with low-intensity, low-scale residential use.
(2) Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential
use. No kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in the guest rooms.
(3) No changes in the exterior appearance shall be allowed to accommodate
each vacation home.
d. Postings.
(1) Vacation homes shall have a clearly legible notice posted on-site, containing
at a minimum the following:
(a) The physical address of the vacation home and business license/operating
permit number;
(b) Name and telephone number of the local representative and property
owner;
(c) Maximum number of occupants allowed overnight;
(d) Maximum number of vehicles allowed parked outside; in designated off
street parking areas;
(e) Refuse disposal instructions;
(f) Location of fire extinguishers;
(g) Outdoor fire regulations;
(h) Domestic animal regulations
(2) Property Line Boundaries: Property owner or local representative shall inform
all occupants of property boundaries;
(3) Property owner or local representative shall include in all print or online
advertising the license or permit number in the first line of the property
description.
(4) Advertising shall accurately represent the permitted use of the property.
Inaccurate or false advertising shall be a violation.
(5) Neighbor Notification. Upon issuance of initial Annual Operating Permit, the
owner or local contact shall be responsible for mailing a written notice.
(a) Notice shall be mailed, with certificate of mailing or other method as
Estes Valley Development Code Page 2 of 5
Vacation Rentals — Exhibit A ["PC Dra
November 29, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
approved by staff, to the owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet
of the subject property.
(b) Notices shall provide a name and telephone number of the local
representative and property owner. Any change in the local representative
or property owner shall be furnished to the Community Development
Director and owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the
subject property within two (2) weeks of the change.
(c) Mailing certificates shall be provided to the Community Development
Director upon issuance of initial Annual Operating Permit.
(d) Vacation homes legally existing as of the effective date of this code shall be
required to send written notice pursuant to §5.1.B.1.d.(5).
e. Parking.
(1) Minimum Required Parking. The number of parking spaces available to a
dwelling unit housing a vacation home shall not be reduced to less than two
(2).
(2) Maximum Allowed Parking. Unless otherwise permitted by this Chapter,
parking shall comply with §5.2.13.2.e.
f. Employee Housing Units. Employee housing units shall not be rented, leased or
furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See §5.2.C.2.a).
g. Accessory Dwelling Units. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not be
permitted on residential lots containing an accessory dwelling. (See also §5.2.13.2.a,
which prohibits rental of accessory dwelling units regardless of the length of tenancy).
h. Density. Only one (1) vacation home shall be permitted per residential dwelling unit.
2. Any vacation homes in a non-residential zoning district (defined herein as all zoning
districts except those listed in Sec. 5.1.B.1), shall be defined and classified as either a
"Hotel/Motel" or a "Hotel, Small" (as those categories are defined in Chapter 13.
Definitions), and subject to regulations therefor. In the case of any conflict with the
"Hotel/Motel" or "Hotel, Small" regulations and the regulations in Sec. 5.1.B, the
"Hotel/Motel" or "Hotel, Small" regulations, as the case may be, shall control.
3. Vacation homes shall also be subject to the following:
a. Occupancy.
(1) Maximum Occupancy. Maximum allowable occupancy in all residential
districts shall be eight (8) occupants. This maximum allowable occupancy
shall be further limited by a maximum of two (2) individuals per bedroom plus
two (2) individuals. For purposes of this section, bedroom is defined as a
sleeping space pursuant to the currently adopted and applicable International
Building Codes.
(2) Number of Parties Vacation homes in residential zone districts as those
districts are defined herein shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more
than one (1) party, occupying the vacation home as a single group.
(3) Owners of the vacation home in residential zone districts as those districts are
defined herein shall not be permitted to occupy the vacation home while a
party is present.
b. Home Occupations. Home occupations shall not be operated on the site of a vacation
home, nor shall vacation homes offer ancillary services to guests.
Estes Valley Development Code Page 3 of 5
Vacation Rentals — Exhibit A ["PC Dra
November 29, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
c. Vacation rentals shall be required to meet applicable Building, Health and Fire codes.
d. Initial Time Frame for Compliance. All vacation homes in every zoning district shall
be required to obtain a new or renewed, as the case may be, operating permit by a
deadline no later than ninety (90) days from the effective date of this Ordinance.
(Ord. 02-10 §1)
Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-4
Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Nonresidential Zoning Districts
"P" = Permitted by Right Additional
"S" = Permitted by Special Review Regulations
"—" = Prohibited (Apply in All Districts
Use Specific A A-1 CD CO 0 CH 1-1 Unless Otherwise
Classification Use Stated)
Low-Intensity
Accommodations
Vacation
Home P P P P — — _ §5.1.B. In CD, such
use shall not be
located on the ground
floor of a building
fronting on Elkhorn
Avenue. (Ord. 02-10
§1)
§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
Table 5-2
Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Accessory Use
Residential Zoning District
"Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted
"CUP" = Conditional Use Permit Additional
Requirements A A-1 CD CO 0 CH 1-1
Estes Valley Development Code Page 4 of 5
Vacation Rentals - Exhibit A ["PC Dra
November 29, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
§ 12.7 - ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
A. Nonemergency Matters.
In the case of a violation of this Code that does not constitute an emergency or require immediate
attention, wriften notice of the nature of the violation shall be given to the property owner, agent,
occupant or the Applicant for any relevant permit. Notice shall be given in person, or by certified
U.S. Mail, or by posting notice on the premises. The notice shall specify the Code provisions
allegedly in violation, and—unless a shorter time frame is allowed by this Chapter—shall state
that the individual has a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of the receipt of the notice in
which to correct the alleged violations before further enforcement action shall be taken. The
notice shall also state any appeal and/or variance procedures available pursuant to this Code.
The Board of Trustees or Board of County Commissioners, as applicable, may grant an
extension of the time to cure an alleged violation, up to a total of ninety (90) days, if the
Board finds that due to the nature of the alleged violation, it reasonably appears that it
cannot be corrected within fifteen (15) days. (Ord. 2-02 #3)
This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption by the Board of Trustees of the
Town of Estes Park or the Board of Larimer County Commissioners, whichever may occur last.
Estes Valley Development Code Page5of5
Vacation Rentals — Exhibit A ["PC Dra
November 29, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Town of Estes Park Trustees 23 August 2016
FROM: COL Robert "Terry" Gilbert (ret.), AICP
Director
SUBJECT: Vacation Rental Task Force Recommendations on Vacation Rentals for 9 or More Occupants
30 August 2016 Joint Work Session
At the 2 February 2016 Joint Work Session between the Board of County Commissioners, Town Trustees, and
the Estes Valley Planning Commission, I was asked to develop the Scope of Work and Timeline for a Vacation
Rental Task Force. The Task Force was charged with developing recommendations, concerning vacation rentals
that will accommodate 9 or more individuals. The Task Force was not charged with making recommendations
on the Enforcement process, because the enforcement processes were going to be reviewed by the Town staff
separately.
Timeline
Both Boards set mid-November 2016 as the approximate time for the final public hearing to decide on possible
Development Code amendments, for vacation rentals, which accommodated 9 or more occupants. The Scope of
Work and Timeline were developed with the mid-November date as a completion date. The Board of County
Commissioners and the Town Trustees approved the Scope of Work & Timeline on 16 February and 23
February, respectively, with two changes:
1. Add a task force member from the Association of Responsible Development (ARD) and
2. Have a task force member selected by the property managers.
The Task Force was made up of 15 members, not counting myself. The membership is made up of two primary
categories:
1. Individuals (8 members) approved by the Town Trustees and Board of County Commissioners:
a. 3 home owners within the town limits, living near or close to a vacation rental;
b. 3 home owners within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area, living near or
close to a vacation rental;
c. 1 vacation rental owner, with a vacation rental in the town limits;
d. 1 vacation rental owner, with a vacation rental within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley
Planning Area.
2. Organizations (7). Each organization was to select a representative to be on the Task Force. The actual
list of organizations and their representative is shown in Tab A.
On 12 April 2016, both the Town Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners met, via a tele-conference,
to select the 8 members of group 1, above.
The first meeting of the Task Force was held on 27 April 2016. The meetings were held every other Wednesday
from 27 April through 3 August 2016, for a total of 8 meetings.
3
Between 27 April and 3 August both the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners were
updated on the process of the Task Force in June and July.
On 3 August 2016, the Task Force completed their assignment to recommend potential changes to the Estes
Valley Land Development Code, should the Board of Trustees and the County Commissioners decide to allow
Vacation Rentals for 9/above occupants.
The current schedule for the potential adoption is as follows:
30 August 2016 - Work session between the Board of Trustees, Board of County Commissioners,
and the Estes Valley Planning Commission.
Should the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners decide
to move forward with the Public Hearing process, the Town of Estes
Community Development Department will develop appropriate Code
amendments reflecting the Task Force recommendations and any additional
language requested by either of the Boards.
18 October 2016 — Estes Valley Planning Commission Public Hearing
17 November 2016 - Board of Trustees' and Board of County Commissioners' joint Public Hearing.
It needs to be noted, an initial assumption in the timeline was the final determination on the amendments to the
vacation rents for 8/below and whether there would be a cap on the total number of vacation rentals in the Estes
Valley Planning Area. As of the date of this report, no action has been taken to resolve the two items.
The Process
As both the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners know, the issue of vacation rentals is an
extremely volatile issue. Although the members of the Task Force were appointed to work together in
developing a set of recommendations for the two Boards, each representative still had their own opinions about
vacation rentals. This was evident in the first half of the process and resulted in heated arguments.
During the process, three Task Force members resigned, the most recent on the day of the last meeting. Those
resigning were: one owner/occupied representative from within the Town limits (resigned on 6 July) and two
owner/occupied representatives outside of the Town limits (one resigned on 19 July and the other on 3 August).
However, in July and August, the representatives, for the most part, were working to develop recommendations
each member could live with. As a result, 15 out of 17 tasks were completed and are being recommended with a
unanimous vote.
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 added one additional meeting on 3 August 2016.
The end process of approving recommendations was two-fold:
1. The vote had to be a majority vote of all members
2. The vote had to be an "Equitable Vote": ie;
a. A minimum of 5 out of the 8 members (that were not representing the Owner/Occupied residential
properties) was needed,
b. A minimum of 4 out of the 7 members (that were representing the Owner/Occupied residential
properties) was needed.
4
Even though 3 of the 7 owner/occupied representatives resigned during the process, all 4 of the
remaining members had to vote for a recommendation, in order for it to be considered an "Equitable
Vote". Tab "A" shows the actual votes on each recommendation.
Any task, not being recommended, would still be brought forward to the Board of Trustees and Board of County
Commissioners with an explanation of why the Task Force was not able to reach a final recommendation on a
particular task.
There were a total of eighteen (18) tasks discussed:
I. Fifteen (15) of the tasks are being recommended with a unanimous decision,
2. The Task Force could not reach a "Equitable Vote" on two of the tasks,
3. One Task (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.
Throughout the process, a key issue of concern was the lack of enforcement of the current land use regulations
and whether enforcement was going to continue to be an issue. Although Enforcement was not a task assigned
to the Task Force, once the Task Force completed their assigned duties, they did discuss Enforcement of the
land development code and addressed Building Code concerns.
For the Building Codes, the Task Force recommends 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 9 and above, are regulated.
The Task Force appointed Ed Peterson to speak on their behalf regarding concerns related to current and future
enforcement of the Land Development Code. Mr. Peterson will speak at the end of the joint work session.
Recommendations:
Tab "A" below is a listing of the tasks, the Task Force identified, and the recommendations associated with the
tasks.
TAB A
Estes Valley Vacation Rental Task Force
9 & Above Occupancy
Recommendations
Date: 06 July 2016
Task: Process for establishing occupancy count
Vote: Total: 13 - 0
Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Not
Present
Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
X Bernie Hollen Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
X Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
Recommendation:
Process count should be (2 occupants per bedroom + 2 additional occupants)
7
Date: 06 July 2016
Task: Traffic limitations in areas adjacent to VR
Vote: Total: 13 - 0 Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Not
Present
Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
X Bernie Hollen Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
X Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
Recommendation:
Traffic imitations in areas adjacent to Vacation Rentals are to be the same as the existing
requirements for the area.
8
Date: 06 July 2016
Task: Speed limits in areas adjacent to VR
Vote: Total: 13 - 0 Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Not
Present
Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
X Bernie Hollen Home Owner (out of Town)
,,.1.;'...:, Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
X Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
Recommendation:
Speed limits in areas adjacent to Vacation Rentals are to be the same as the existing
requirements for the area.
9
Date: 06 July 2016
Task: Number of Vacation Rentals in a neighborhood — No Recommendation on Number
Vote: Total: 10 - 3 Non-HO: 7 yes HO: 3 yes & 3 no
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Not
Present
Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
X Bernie Hollen Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
X Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
The TF recommendation was not approved with an equitable vote. Therefore, this is not a
recommendation of the TF. A vote of 11-2 would be required to be considered equitable.
Concerns were raised, by those not in favor of the motion, about the current lack of enforcement and
that the character of the neighborhood would be changed if there was no restriction.
10
Date: 06 July 2016
Task: Review of Assessor's records vs Building Department records (ie: number of bedrooms)
Vote: Total: 13 - 0 Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Not
Present
Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
X Bernie Hollen Home Owner (out of Town)
WA*Wk Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
X Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
The process is already underway and the TF recommends continuing to review the Assessor's records
against the Building Department to determine the legal number of bedrooms associated with vacation
rentals.
11
Date: 06 July 2016 & 03 August 2016
Task: Inspections to be conducted by local government, etc.
Vote: Total: 14 - Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X. Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
X Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
X Bernie Hollen Home Owner (out of Town)
'1
..„ Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
X Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
Recommendation:
1. All normal Land Use, Building, Health, Fire, etc. to be utilized
2. Annual inspections are not required
Note: Originally, on 06 July 2016, the vote was 10 — 3 and was an approved with an equitable vote.
On 03 Aug 2016, the individuals who voted no (Jane Livingston, Rainer Schelp, and Linda Moak, plus
Bill Van Horn) requested their votes be changed to "yes", thus making the final vote 14 — 0.
12
Date: 20 July 2016
Task: Grandfathering of 9/above Vacation Rentals
Vote: Total: 10 - 0 Non-HO: 1-10:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Not
Present
Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
Not
Present
Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Not
Present
Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
Recommendation:
1. Effective 01 July 2016, Grandfather existing 9/above, or capacity for 9/above, Vacation Rentals, only
for VRs that are currently permitted as 8/below and have existing capacity for 9/above.
2. Within 30 days of the final adoption of 9/above VR regulations, all potential grandfathered
9/above VRs are to submit for license/permit. (verification of the use must be provided)
3. Grandfather status for 9/above VR:
a. Location on a lot of less than one (1) acre would be grandfathered
b. Existing setback of less than 25 feet would be grandfathered
c. Use as a grandfathered 9/above vacation rental is dependent on the number of
bedrooms (2 occupants per bedroom + 2 additional occupants)
d. Parking, Building, Health, Fire, etc. are not Grandfathered.
Note: As of 01 July 2016, there were a total of 97 vacation rentals, which would potentially be considered
under the Grandfather recommendation:
32 vacation rentals within the Town limits
65 vacation rentals within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area
13
Date: 20 July 2016
Task: Location Requirements
Vote: Total: 10 - 0
Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Not
Present
Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
Not
Present
Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Not
Present
Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
Recommendation:
1. Allowed in the same zoning districts as the 8/below are allowed
2. Minimum of 1 acre lot (smaller lots could be combined, utilizing the subdivision regulations, to create a
1 acre or larger lot)
3. Minimum of 25' setbacks for all a yards or the zoning district setbacks, whichever is greater
14
Date: 20 July 2016
Task: Parking
Vote: Total: 10 - 0
Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Not
Present
Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
Not
Present
Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Not
Present
Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
Recommendation:
Utilize the current language in the Estes Valley Land Development Code:
5.2.B.2.e.6 Limit on Number of Parked or Stored Vehicles, Not Including Recreational Equipment
and Recreational Vehicles, on a Lot.
(a) This Section applies to all vehicles that are not parked or stored in a fully enclosed garage.
(b) As Accessory to Single-Family and Two-Family Principal Uses. No more than a total of four (4)
vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot of two (2) acres or less. No more than a total of five
(5) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot greater than two (2) acres in size, but less than
five (5) acres. No more than a total of six (6) vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot equal
to, or greater than five (5) acres, but less than ten (10) acres. No more than a total of eight (8)
vehicles shall be parked or stored on a lot equal to, or greater than ten (10) acres.
Note: A variance to the parking requirements would need to be added, to the VR application, to have more
vehicles than listed above.
15
Date: 20 July 2016
Task: Renter Notification Requirements for Posting
Vote: Total: 10 - 0
Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Not
Present
Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
Not
Present
Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Not
Present
Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
Recommendation:
This is the recommended list to be posted in the home of vacation rentals of 9 or more. It does not include
information that would be in the rental agreement or expanded information that would be included in the
guest information binder/book in the home. However, it is recommended the same list be used for vacation
rentals of 8 and below occupancy.
YOU ARE STAYING IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR NEIGHBORS ARE GOING
ABOUT THEIR DAILY LIVES, INCLUDING GETTING UP TO GO TO WORK, POSSIBLY VERY
EARLY (5 AM). SLOW DOWN WHILE DRIVING, RESPECT THEIR PRIVACY, DO NOT
TRESPASS AND REDUCE THE OUTSIDE NOISE LEVEL AFTER 9:00 PM. THIS WILL GO A
LONG WAY IN ASSURING OUR ABILITY TO RETAIN OUR VACATION RENTAL FOR
FUTURE VISITORS. THANK YOU.
1. Physical address and License or Permit #:
2. Name and contact information for owner/manager:
16
3. Important contact information:
Emergency 911
Police Department
Fire Department
Hospital
Doctors Office (walk-in)
4. Maximum occupancy:
5. Visitors/Daily use: A visitor is an occupant in the rental property that is not staying
overnight. The total number of persons permitted in rental property including visitors is
. This property is not an event venue.
6. Parking: Number of vehicles allowed:
Vehicles in garage do not count. On street parking is prohibited by ordinance.
7. Location of fire extinguisher/s
8. Trash Disposal: (Information pertinent to each property).
Leaving trash or food outside or in your car has the potential for attracting bears and
other wildlife looking for an easy snack. This causes damage, puts people in danger and
jeopardizes the life and safety of the wildlife involved.
9. Noise: Noise in the Estes Valley travels easily and far in the mountain air, especially in the
evening, night and early morning hours. Tenant shall not make or permit any excessive,
disturbing or annoying
Noise in or on the Rental Property by tenants or guests, nor permit such persons to do
anything that will interfere with the rights of neighbors in the surrounding area,
specifically including, but not limited to, the right of quiet enjoyment. By ordinance, noise
levels are strictly controlled and enforced with mandatory quiet hours between 10 pm
and 9 am. Please read expanded version regarding noise in the house information book.
10. Wildlife Safety/Protection: Do not approach or feed any wild animals
Including birds. Animals of any size are potentially dangerous. Do not allow small children
to be outdoors except with adult supervision. You have a responsibility for the well-being
17
of wild animals by not putting yourself in a situation whereby you or your children could
be injured thus requiring that the animal be destroyed.
11. Pet Regulations/Safety: Not relevant if owner does not allow pets.
Estes Park has a leash law requiring all pets to be on a leash at all times-enforced with
fines. Do not allow pet to chase wildlife. This puts the wildlife and the pet's life in danger
and you in danger of a large fine. Do not tie up/tether pet outside as this only makes the
pet available as coyote and mountain lion chow. Pick up your pets poop.
12. Exterior Lighting: Turn off all exterior lighting when not needed or by 10 pm.
13. Map/Plot Plan: - State where it can be found and encourage tenants to look at
it. Mark boundary corners, if possible, so that they are noticeable.
14. Trespassing: Trespassing on private property is illegal in Colorado. Trespassing may
result in the eviction of all guests. As part of your Vacation Rental Agreement you have
agreed that all members in your group will refrain from trespassing on the adjacent
neighbor's property.
15. Fire Alarms/Carbon Monoxide Detectors: The property has fire alarms and
Carbon monoxide detectors installed and they are believed to be functioning properly at
the time of rental. Notify management without delay if a fire alarm or carbon monoxide
detector "chirps" or has a low battery condition.
16. Smoking: Not relevant if smoking is not allowed on property.
If smoking outside, all cigarettes must be extinguished and butts placed in designated
receptacles. Do not toss cigarette butts on ground as fires can quickly start.
17. Miscellaneous:
No weddings or wedding related groups, large groups, parties, functions etc.
18
Date: 20 July 2016
Task: Noise Requirements
Vote: Total: 10 - 0
Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Not
Present
Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
Not
Present
Rainer Scheip Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Not
Present
Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
Current Town or County Noise Ordinance, depending on location in or out of Town, would apply. No additional
requirements limiting use or time of use, for outside activities, would be required.
19
Date: 20 July 2016
Task: Minimum age limit for counting an Individual as an Occupant
Vote: Total: 10 - 0 Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Not
Present
Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
Not
Present
Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Not
Present
Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
Recommendation:
All occupants, regardless of age, would be counted. This is due to health, safety, welfare concerns in case of
fires, etc.
20
Date: 20 July 2016
Task: Proof of Insurance
Vote: Total: 10 - 0 Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Not
Present
Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
Not
Present
Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Not
Present
Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
No Proof of Insurance will be required. Insurance is the responsibility of the VR owner.
21
Date: 20 July 2016
Task: Liability: Rental agreements to protect liability of neighbors
Vote: Total: 10 - 0
Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Not
Present
Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
Not
Present
Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X , Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Not
Present
Jo Anne 011erenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
No requirement for liability signoff by renters, for protection of adjacent property owners. The VR is subject to
the same criteria as any other residential home is, within the area. (Note: the VR owner will include the
statement that renters are not to trespass onto adjacent properties. This will be in the list of posted items.)
22
Date: 3 Aug 2016
Task: Local Contact requirements for manager/owner
Vote: Total: 10 - 0
Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
X Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
Not
Present
Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
Not
Present
Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
;,s . ' Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
,0
— , . -
Jo Anne 011erenshaw
(resigned on 3 Aug 2016)
Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
Recommendation:
"Local Contact. The permit shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley
who can be contacted by phone and is available twenty-four (24) hours per day, with regard to any
violation of the provisions of this Section. The local resident or property manager shall respond to
complaints within thirty (30) minutes."
Additionally, the Task Force would recommend this same language be used for vacation rentals that have
8/below occupants.
23
Date: 3 Aug 2016
Task: Maximum Occupancy for 9/above Vacation Rentals (Two motions, see below, 1.a. and 1.b.)
(No matter how many bedrooms the vacation rental has)
Vote: Total:
Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR
Representative
Representing
l.a 1.b l.a Lb
X X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development
(ARD)
X X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
X X Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp
(EDC)
X X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners
Association
X X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
Not Present Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
Not Present Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Jo Anne 011erenshaw
(resigned on 3 Aug 2016)
Home Owner (out of Town)
X X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
After a number of motions, to establish a specific maximum occupancy allowed for a 9/above vacation rental,
no matter how many bedrooms there are, the following was established:
1. There were two motions, which were seconded, however neither motion was approved by the
majority of Owner/occupied representatives. Those motions/votes were:
a. A Motion was made to allow two people per bedroom plus two people with a maximum
occupancy count of 20 people (and/or nine bedrooms plus two people).
Seven members voted in favor the Motion. Three members voted against the Motion.
b. A Motion was made to limit the maximum number of occupants to 8 occupants for any vacation
rental located in a zoning district which had minimum lots sizes of anything less than one acre in
size. Any vacation rental located within a zoning district that allowed lots of one acre or more in
size (E-1, RE, RE-1, A and A-1) could have a maximum of 20 occupants.
7 members voting in favor of the Motion, and 3 members voted against the Motion.
The reason for the no votes was:
24
• The lack of enforcement of all the current code and ordinance requirements (not just the
noise ordnance)
• At what occupancy does a short term rental in a residential zone become an actual
commercial lodging business;
• At what occupancy is the use of a dwelling as a short term rental in conflict with
residential zoning regulations/definitions;
• What is the mechanism for preventing neighborhoods, or developments, of 2 and 3
bedroom homes from being purchased and converted to 9+ VRs by the addition of
bedroom wings or second floors;
• How many high occupancy (9+) vacation rentals could, or should, be allowed in
close proximity before neighborhood character is detrimentally impacted or lost
completely and the resultant residential area turned into a de facto
accommodations zone?
(Please note) It was to be further noted that all the Task Force members came together and
have 100% consensus on the enforcement concern.
2. Through the multiple motions and discussion, the highest maximum limit discussed was 20 occupants
and the lowest maximum was 10.
3. The Task Force believes there should be a maximum occupancy but was not able to establish a
specific occupation limit or establish criteria on how to establish the occupation limit.
25
Date: 3 Aug 2016
Task: Approval Process for 9/above Vacation Rentals (Current Special Review Process)
Vote: Total: 10 - 0
Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
X Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
Not
Present
Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
Not
Present
Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Jo Anne 011erenshaw
(resigned on 3 Aug 2016)
Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
Recommendation:
1. Initially utilize the current Special Review process.
2. Staff needs to develop a more streamlined (shorter) process, which results in an approval by the Board
of Trustees, for applications within the Town and approval by the Board of County Commissioners for
applications within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area.
There was a lengthy discussion, on the approval process. All members agreed the Board of Trustees or the
Board of County Commissioners (depending on whether within the Town limits or in the unincorporated area)
should be the final approval authority through a Special Review process. There was discussion about
administrative approvals, however the Task Force "did not have confidence in the town board or staff, based
on past experience with the Town Board's actions".
The members of the Task Force, who own and live in their homes, strongly oppose any change to the current
Special Review process, which would allow for a staff approval of such an application. The Task Force firmly
believe "there is need for a public hearing to allow the elected officials to hear, first hand, the pros and cons
of such a change, contemplate the impact to neighbors, and to minimize any possible staff misinterpretation
of the code".
The Task Force members, who represent vacation rentals, agree the Special Review process should be utilized,
with a Board of Trustees' or Board of County Commissioners' final approval. However, they feel the current
Special Review process is too cumbersome and lengthy a process.
26
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
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 Tern 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
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 taws 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
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 1s1 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
Estes Valley Vacation Rental Data v2.0
Larimer County Assessor's database, 07/15/16
• There are approximately 6500 residential units in the Valley
• Approximately 3100 are owned by non-Valley residents
o 3100/6500 = 48% of residences are owned by non-residents
n 20% by non-Valley Colorado owners
n 28% by out of state owners
Host Compliance (►Compass) data, 07/16
• 750 vacation rentals in the Estes Valley Planning Area
Estes Valley vacation rental data - per Town license/permit applications as of 11/01/16
498 licensed/permitted vacation rentals
• 265 in Estes Park
• 233 in Larimer County
• Note: 498/750 = 66% of vacation rentals are licensed
Of the licensed/permitted vacations rentals
• 353 are 3 bedrooms or less
• 112 are 4 bedrooms or more (potential 9+ occupancy)
• 33 have an unknown number of bedrooms
78% of the Estes Valley VRs have non-Estes Valley owners
46% of the Estes Valley VRs have out of state owners
140 —150 of the 492 vacation rentals "Business Names" include the terms LLC, LP, Inc, Enterprise, Ltd,
Partnership, Holding, etc.
- 38 owners own multiple vacations for a total of 98 properties
Estes Park Area Housing Needs Study, Rees Consulting Inc, January 22, 2016
"Loss of Units — At the same time rental demand was increasing from the factors mentioned above, the
size of the rental inventory declined. Long-term rentals occupied by the workforce have been sold to
new owners as the market recovered or converted into short-term vacation home rentals, both of which
displaced renters and permanently reduced the supply of rental housing.", Pg. 67
"Rental homes being sold, flood damage and rentals being converted to short-term rentals have
affected the most renters — about 200 each.", Pg. 83
Fred Mares's data 2016-11-09 handout.docx frm 110116
No. of Vacation Rentals No. of Vacation Rentals 171
01" Kg) d 0" 0° \ 01:1 0°) "5S 'Y)3 ti" ti° p p pppi, 15) ,5) ,),c3 5)
Town Board approves "Use by Right'
Licensed VR growth (from 2016 license/permit info)
.14-Liaa•
Estes Valley Vacation Rental Data v2.0
Homes converted to Vacation Rentals each year
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20 9
1 0 0
1c.
Nc5c) 19°) e
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0 1 2 2 3 3
rr lik
68
14 10 8
13
16 41 41 111
95
co '1 cb 0) 0 '1, <.) cb }ti'Y yy C•
0?) 0?) 0?) 0?) CP O'Z' O CP CP CP op
O'Z' 1, 1, 1, , 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, '1, 1, 1, '1, 1, '1,
Town Board approves "Use by Right"
Fred Mares's data 2016-11-09 handout.docx
frm 110116
250
200 192
150
124
0
0
Z 100
79
50 37
0
1 2 3 4
a VRs
2 1 2 1
6 7 8 9
27
1
5
41
40
36
31
25
20 21 14
0 6 7 6
ri 2
A A-1 CD CO E E-1 R R-1 R-2 RE RE-1 RM
Zoning District
VRs
4+ Bdrrns 33 VRs have an unknow number of
11
20
0
Estes Valley Vacation Rental Data v2.0
Size of Vacation Rentals (no. of bedrooms)
No. of Bedrooms
Vacation Rentals per Zoning District
140
120
114 115
100
92
c'2 80
0
z 60
Fred Mares's data 2016-11-09 handout.docx frm 110116
Estes Valley Vacation Rental Data v2.0
Estes Valley VR ownership No. of VRs 180
160
160
140
120 109
100
80
60
40
20 13 7 10 12
123
1
1 1 1 1
0 II
ct <N4 •zr < 0 z
23
55
44
7 6 9 1 1
9
1 2 2 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 5
1
z 0 '22 u p w 7 r 2 Y z< 2 2 222 zz zzoo0E- 1— ›
Owner's state of residence
Total licensed VRs in all zones 498 % of 498
VRs in A and C zones 108 22%
VRs in residential zones 390 78%
VRs in residential RM zones 92 18%
VRs in residential w/o RM zones 298 60%
Total licensed VRs in all zones 498 % of 498
Total licensed 4+ bdrm VRs 112 22%
4+ bdrm VRs in A and C zones 22 4%
4+ bdrm VRs in residential zones 90 18%
4+ bdrm VRs in RM zones 20 4%
4+ bdrm VRs in res w/o RM 70 14%
Fred Mares's data 2016-11-09 handout.docx frm 110116
ec rye.
0;41Arr‘
L
ii.iv6.13,
RD
L
--1-L=1
Legend
• Vacation Homes
EVDC Boundary
Commercial/Acommodations Zoning
i
ESTES EP .PARK
COLORADO
Town of Estes Park
Community Development
Vacation Homes In
Commercial/Accommodations
Zone Districts Created By: Audem Gonzales Printed: 11/22/2016
N 1 in = 5,000 ft
A 0 2,600
Feet
5,200
This draft document was prepared for internal use by the
Town of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to
the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that you
do not post this document on the internet or otherwise
make it available to persons unknown to you.
A
ESTES
[P PARK
COLORADO
Town of Estes Park
Community Development
1 in = 5,000 ft
11M=7=1
0 2,600 5,200
Feet
This draft document was prepared for internal use by the
Town of Estes Park, CO. The Town makes no claim as to
the accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that you
do not post this document on the Internet or otherwise
make it available to persons unknown to you.
A
Vacation Homes
In Residential Zone Districts
Created By: Audem Gonzales Printed: 11/22/2016
PA
LL ac3711E.iti. )5,
Legend
Vacation Homes
EVDC Boundary
Residential Zoning
VACATION RENTAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Due to the extensive amount of public comment, copies were not made
for Commissioner's notebooks.
Comments can be viewed at www.estes.org/VacationRentals . Open the
drop down box titled "Timeline". All public comment is linked for the
November 29, 2016 meeting. The most recent comments are always
placed at the top of the document. It is likely we will receive additional
public comments until the meeting on Tuesday. Please check the website
often for new comments. I will try to keep it updated on an hourly basis,
if needed.
If you prefer hard copies of the public comments, please let me know. I
will be happy to print them for you.
Karen Thompson
Community Development
970-577-3721
kthompson@estes.org
4Cik
)V\-"
ESTES
A
[I) ,PARX
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>
,
0
8°V2 1 MS
t
Rainer Schelp <rainer@estesparkcentral.com >
COMni
'NIT), ov 22, 2016 at 12:06 PM
To: planning@estes.org wr-t;ENT
Cc: Igaiter@larimerorg, donnelt@larimer.org, johnsosw@co.larimerco.us, Tajirsa@gmail.com , oenig@estes.org,
bholcomb@estes.org , wnelson@estes.org , rnorris@estes.org, cwalker@estes.org , pmartchink@estes.org ,
gilberrt@co.larimer.co.us
Dear Commissioners and Trustees;
As you are aware, the function of the Task Force was to come up with recommendations regarding vacation rental homes
that can accommodate 9+ occupants. The Task force recommended that 9+ vacation homes be allowed and that there
should be no cap on the number of vacation homes in Estes Park. I am very surprised that the Planning commission came
up with a draft recommendation that was just opposite of the Task Force.
One of the major outcomes from the Task Force was that the Town and the County provide better enforcement of the
vacation rental ordinance. This will go a long way in making the vacation rental homes fit into the character and peace and
quiet of the neighborhoods.
Before the Planning Commission makes a final recommendation, I suggest that they map out the locations of the vacation
rentals that could accommodate more than 8 people. The majority of these vacation rentals are in more rural areas and on
larger lots like those on Devil's Gulch Rd. With good enforcement, these properties would not impose a problem for their
neighbors, who most likely are quite a distance away.
Estes Park as a resort community, is just beginning to reach its potential as evidenced by the number of visitors to the park
over the past several years. The economic benefit to the Town of Estes Park and to the businesses in Estes Park is huge.
Visitors to Estes Park support our business community, our infrastructure and our quality of life. i understand that Vacation
Rentals provide about 40% of the housing for these visitors. I also believe that the Town was close to capacity this summer.
Reducing our vacation rental capacity will have a very negative economic impact. The Planning Commission Draft is already
affecting the real estate market as evidenced by the following email I received last week from a vacation rental owner that
wants to buy a second vacation rental home in Estes Park:
"Rainer:
I hope this finds you well and getting ready for a great Thanksgiving. Our family will be celebrating in Estes Park and we
are all looking forward to making memories there. Once we've gotten some use out of system, we'll be putting it back
into the rental system with you.
Thanks for all the work this summer. We really appreciate it and are very happy with the results.
I was just reading the EP rental update from the town and am concerned about a few things. It, of course, is way too
wordy so I'm not sure if I understand everything. Could you send me a Reader's Digest version? I sure would appreciate
it.
FYI- we've been considering investing in other rental opportunities in EP but are wondering if that
would be a mistake right now." (A customer of Estes Park Central)
Another person who is in the process of purchasing a vacation rental home called me last week and is now not sure if they
should proceed with their contract as a result of the Planning Commission Draft.
Should the Town of Estes Park receive a negative image regarding the vacation rental environment, there is nothing that
says that the Town will not decline. It has happened in other communities in Colorado like Lake City, where special interests
caused a major decline in the economy of the town.
The impact of the Planning Commission's Draft V
Recommendations on the Town of Estes Park
2 messages
ance
I do not understand how the Planning Commission can recommend an arbitrary cap of 450 vacation rentals for Estes Park.
My understanding is that Estes Park currently has over 700 vacation rentals. Does this mean that the Town will cut out
300+ vacation rentals? As Mike Richardson of the Board of Realtors previously stated, this action would create havoc in the
Estes Park Real Estate market. It would be a market of have's and have not's with regard to vacation rentals. The price of
the houses that are vacation rentals would be higher than those houses that are not vacation rentals. Again, this action
would create an economic nightmare for Estes Park. With regard to the issue of available housing in Estes Park, I rather
doubt that homes that can occupy 9+ people would be in a price range to provide affordable housing.
The Task Force recommended that vacation rental homes that have the capacity of 9+ occupants be grandfathered. I
support this and recommend that the effective date be the date that the new ordinance goes into effect rather than retro-
actively apply to July 1, 2016. How can an ordinance be in effect before it is in place?
I have lived in Estes Park for more that 10 years and been very involved in the community. After attending over four years
of town vacation rental meetings and having served as a Task Force member, I believe that the planning commission's
position represents the minority of the town's residents and seems to be aligned with the special interest view of vacation
rentals. I am very concerned as to the impact of this minority view to the health and economic well being of Estes Park.
Overall, the vast majority of vacation renters that come to Estes Park have been well behaved. The few that have not
followed the rules need to pay the price.
The Task Force clearly indicated that with proper enforcement, neighborhoods and vacation rentals can peacefully co-exist
while preserving the economic well being of Estes Park
Rainer
President
Estes Park Central
505 Big Horn Dr
Estes Park, CO 80517
Office: 303 4350110
Fax: 425 8717708
www. estesparkcentral. corn
"Support our Town"
www.shopestesparkcolorado.com
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 2:22 PM
To: Rainer Schelp <rainer@estesparkcentral.com >
Rainer,
Thank you for your comment. I will post it to the Town website and include it in the materials for the Planning
Commissioners' November 29th meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Karen Thompson
Executive Assistant
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
Phone: 970-577-3721
Fax: 970-586-0249
kthompson@estes.org
[Quoted text hidden]
Monday, November 21, 2016
Estes Park Planning Commissioners
Larimer County Commissioners
Estes Park Board of Trustees
Sent via Email
NOV tit as
C MMUNITYDEIVELOPMENT
(ft----1*1orne9
1
,L
C
LC
Re: Regulatory Discussions & Position Document Regarding Vacation Rentals in the Estes Valley
I will be unable to attend the Special Planning Commission meeting to be held Tuesday, November 29, 2016
at 1:30 p.m. but would ask you all to consider the following from my perspective as owner of Windcliff Homes,
a professional vacation rental management company operating continuously for more than 40 years in the
unincorporated Estes Valley at Windcliff Estates.
Some background on Windcliff Vacation Rentals. Vacation rentals were started by the original developers
of Windcliff, Don and Wylene Buser in the early 1970s. The Busers and their successors valued vacation
rentals as a means of promoting lot sales, funding the neighborhood's development and providing income for
owners who were then able to build their Windcliff homes prior to eventual retirement to the Estes Valley full-
time. Windcliff vacation rentals have been in continuous, uninterrupted operation and fully consistent with the
Busers' original intent since day 1.
Back in 2000, when the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County created a Master Plan for the Estes Valley
and created the Estes Valley Development Code, Windcliff was zoned Estate one acre or E-1 and vacation
rentals being a permitted use for that zoning. Thus vacation rentals in Windcliff Estates have long been in
conformance with EVDC zoning.
Vacation rentals at Windcliff have always been conducted on-site at the "gatehouse" at the entrance to
Windcliff. The principle foci of Windcliff Properties throughout the last 40 years has been not only to provide
income for property owners, but also to protect the mountain, assist owners in the maintenance and upkeep
of their homes, and to minimize the effect of vacation rentals on the quality of life at Windcliff. Every owner of
the rental business has been and continues to be a full-time resident of Windcliff Estates.
Windcliff Vacation Rentals: Proven Self-Regulating Operations. The vacation rental management
business at Windcliff has continuously been operated as the most highly self-regulated vacation rental
program in the Estes Valley with long-standing regulations regarding minimum age of renters,
purpose/intention of guest use, standards for occupancy, noise, parking, speed limits, hiking, care and
acceptable behavior.
Questioning further Regulation: "Balancing Needs for Guest Housing?" Permit me to begin this letter
by addressing the Core Principles Section of the Commission's position document that suggests that the
growth of vacation rentals in the Estes Valley has grown in a largely unregulated and unlimited way with the
result that residential communities are being degraded. This is an unfortunate blanket position for all
neighborhoods in the Estes Valley without any regard for individual neighborhoods such as Windcliff, their
traditions or their operational history. As such, specifically to Windcliff, it is not clear to me that the Planning
Commission is "balancing" the needs for guest housing so much as it is simply seeking to increase
regulations and enforcement of vacation rentals.
Page 1 of 3
www.windcliff.corn 2220 Windcliff Drive, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 970-586-2181
0,14-hdcle
Homes, LLC
Implications Regarding "Affordable Housing." The Estes Valley Planning Commission: Vacation Rental
Position Document goes on to suggest that all vacation rentals somehow threaten the availability of affordable
housing. The "CAST Report and the Estes Park Area Housing Needs Study" are being referenced in the
Position Paper clearly to justify increased regulation and limitations on vacation rental homes by suggesting
vacation rentals are reducing the number of affordable homes available in the Estes Park area. However,
what the studies do not address is specific local neighborhoods (like Windcliff) or their current real estate
values. Homes at Windcliff could never have been considered reasonable sources of "affordable housing."
The average price of detached homes in the Estes Park area is in excess of $480,000 according to available
MLS data compiled by RE/MAX Mountain Brokers. The average price of homes in Windcliff is even higher. I
find it puzzling that the Planning Commission is suggesting that our continuous vacation rental operations at
Windcliff have therefore somehow contributed directly the lack of affordable housing in the Estes Valley. It
just isn't so.
9+ Occupancies. The Commission appears to be opposed to any new vacation rentals with 9-plus
occupancies, and may or may not permit grandfathered rentals of 9-plus without specific restrictions like being
on one acre or larger lots with a minimum of 25 feet setbacks. It is not clear to me how the permitting of
grandfathered rental properties would be handled. At Windcliff, many of our homes were designed for multi-
generational families to share a home when visiting the Estes Valley. My 4- bedroom family home, designed
to sleep my family of 5, my parents, my wife's mother and our expected grandchildren with all members of the
family comfortably and safely in their own beds. So why wouldn't it be permissible to offer the same to
vacation rental guests wishing to rent our home with the same intent? The arbitrary occupancy limitation of 8
wouldn't allow my own family to rent our own home if we were rental guests!? Given the fact that many
Windcliff homes are on 1+ acre of land and offer 4+ bedrooms, this is an especially relevant topic for Windcliff
homeowners who rent their homes when they are not using them personally.
International Building Code. There are disturbing suggestion/comments in ongoing discussions that the
Town and the Estes Valley zoning district should consider enforcement of the International Building Code
(IBC) for residential properties. It is incomprehensible to me how commercial codes could ever be forced
upon residences legally designed, engineered, permitted and built to residential building codes, legally
permitted and built in residential development zones to offer residential housing. Even when that residence is
being rented to a family renting it for a vacation, the function and purpose of that use is still entirely
residential. Therefore, I certainly encourage the Town and Commission to terminate any further discussion of
the IBC suggestion(s).
Capping Vacation Rental Growth. I understand the Planning Commission is recommending that there be a
restriction, reviewed annually, of 450 permits issued per year for residential neighborhoods. There are
currently 498 licensed or permitted vacation rentals in the Estes Valley in all types of zoning, and an
estimated total of 750 vacation homes. This means that there are 252 unlicensed vacation rentals. Capping
permitted vacation rentals at 450, therefore appears to be an effort simply to punish currently unpermitted
rentals rather than encouraging all vacation rentals to become licensed or permitted. Why would Estes
planners behave in such a manner?
Also, we politely request existing permitted rentals have priority for renewals. In none of the current
documents does this appear to be the commissioners' plans moving forward. We hope to see this change in
the next draft text amendment.
My third comment about the Cap is that permits are being issued to owners. Permits should be issued to
properties. The permit for a residence to be legally used as a vacation rental is an appurtenance of that
property and should convey with the sale of that property. It is indisputable to me that vacation rental income
is baked into the market for second homes in places like Windcliff. That is to say, most buyers cannot afford
to purchase a home in Windcliff without the opportunity to offset the exorbitant expense with vacation rental
income. As such, the permit should convey with the property, not the owners of the property.
Page 2 of 3
www.windeliff.coto 2220 Windctiff Drive, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 970-586-2181
Homes, Homes, LW
The CAST Report Summary (Colorado Association of Ski Towns). 1 am simply befuddled that this report
is being used for any purpose related to vacation rentals in the Estes Valley other than the commission simply
attempting to leverage it as a justification of increased regulations and restrictions on vacation rentals. It
seems this topic is more an issue of "what mountain towns should be concerning themselves with" than it is
quantifiable and actionable.
Regarding The Task Force's Detailed Recommendations. As mentioned previously, our vacation rental
management business at Windcliff has continuously been operated as the most highly self-regulated vacation
rental program in the Estes Valley. The Task Force's references to existing regulations like parking, noise
etc. seem consistent with common sense and wouldn't necessitate changes to our policies in the Windcliff
Properties rental program. If anything, these new regulations will just require other operators in the Estes
area to bring their operations up to the high standards long established and in practice at Windcliff. So we
applaud the Task Force and Commission for enabling enforcement across all vacation rental homes in the
Estes Valley area.
In summary. Our major concerns at this time revolve around the permit Cap and the looming uncertainty if
not absurdity of regulation according the International Building Code (IBC). There are potential implications
from the recently adopted International Building Code that may place highly adverse restrictions on and
negatively affect the value of homes that are used as vacation rentals, essentially (illegally?) post-facto
reclassifying and regulating them suddenly as commercial structures.
Finally, the planned License and Permit cap is potentially highly injurious to property rights that all property
owners enjoy in residential neighborhoods including Windcliff, where those owners have had the right to
engage in short term vacation rentals since 2000. The loss of these property rights may have a direct and
substantial effect on property values in Windcliff and the entire Estes Valley.
Thank you for your kind consideration of my unique viewpoint and opinions as owner of Windcliff vacation
rental management company. We sincerely appreciate all the time and energy the Task Force, Commission,
Trustees and community members have poured into this effort. I am continuously pleased and impressed
with the efficiency and sensibilities exhibited by participants on all sides of the issues. We are honored to be
Estes Valley business owners and homeowners.
Very respectfully,
Rich Chiappe
Owner, Windcliff Homes, LLC
2220 Windcliff Drive, Estes Park, CO 80517
Page 3 of 3
www.windcliff.corn 2220 Windcliff Drive, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 970-586-2181
NOV khi
20/8
9-1*
iTYD
Mon, Nov 2i,-10146,'at 2:45 PM
A
ESTE$ff)*PARK
Comments re Vacation Rentals Position Document
2 messages
Peter Rell <rellp19@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Peter ReII <rellp19@yahoo.corn>
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>, "Igaiter@larimer.org" <Igaiter@larimer.org>, "donnelt@larimenorg"
<donnelt@larimer.org>, "johnsosw@co.larimer.co.us " <johnsosw@co.larimenco.us >, "tajirsa@gmail.cone
<tajirsa@gmail.corn>, "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "bholcomb@estes.org" <bholcomb@estes.org>,
"wnelson@estes.org" <wnelson@estes.org>, "morris@ests.org" <morris@ests.org>, "cwalker@estes.org"
<cwalker@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "rich@chiappe.com" <rich@chiappe.corn>,
George Leonard <george@windcliff.com >
Attached are comments on the Position Paper prepared by the Estes Valley Planning Commission regarding Vacation Rentals. I
would appreciate your consideration of these comments before finalizing/approving the new regulations recommended in that
Position Paper.
Comments are attached as both PDF and Word documents (both are the same, the two versions let you choose the software to
read them).
Peter Rell
rellp19@yahoo.com
(928) 282-0905
30 Granada Rd
Sedona, AZ 86336
2 attachments
,v) Comments Regarding the Vacation Rental Position Document.docx
20K
r'7.1 Comments Regarding the Vacation Rental Position Document.pdf
458K
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 2:52 PM
To: Peter Rell <rellp19@yahoo.com>
Peter -
Thank you for your comment. I will post it to the Town website and include it in the materials for the Planning
Commissioners' November 29th meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Karen Thompson
Executive Assistant
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
Phone: 970-577-3721
Fax: 970-586-0249
kthompson@estes.org
'Quoted text hidden]
Comments Regarding the Vacation Rental Position Document
by the Estes Valley Planning Commission
The position of the Planning Commission is that the growth of vacation rentals in
the Estes Valley has grown in a largely unregulated and unlimited way with the
result that residential communities are being degraded. This is a blanket position
for all neighborhoods in the Estes Valley including Windcliff without any regard
for individual neighborhoods, their traditions or their residents. The past and
proposed regulations are the direct result of years of complaints from
homeowners in residential neighborhoods who feel their rights have been
trampled by vacation rental businesses operating nearby. It is not clear to me that
the Planning Commission is "balancing" the needs for guest housing. Their intent
is clearly to increase regulations and enforcement of vacation rentals without
regard to any "balancing".
Windcliff was zoned "Estate One Acre" or E-1 and vacation rentals are a permitted
use for that zoning type. Thus vacation rentals in Windcliff Estates are in
conformance with our zoning. When we purchased our property at Windcliff, we
were fully aware of this zoning and the permitted use as vacation rentals. We
counted on this since we could not have afforded to buy the property without the
prospects of income from vacation rentals. Any new regulations which preclude
or effectively diminish vacation rentals would directly impact us. I think
Comissioners should consider the impact of new regulations on current owners
who have posed no problems due to vacation rentals.
Vacation rentals at Windcliff were started by the developers, Don and Wylene
Buser, from the very foundation of the Windcliff Estates development in order to
promote lot sales and provide income for owners so that they could build their
Windcliff homes prior to retirement. A principle focus of Windcliff Properties,
which has managed most vacation rentals at Windcliff over the last 30 years has
been not only to provide income for property owners, but also to protect the
mountain, assist owners in the maintenance and upkeep of their homes, and to
a
3 dui
minimize the effect of vacation rentals on the quality of life at Windcliff. Every
owner of the rental business controlling and supporting the great majority of
vacation rentals at Windcliff has been a full-time resident of Windcliff Estates. I
am not aware of any problems or complaints regarding vacation rentals at
Windcliff during our ownership.
In addition to complaints from residential homeowners, the Planning Commission
seems to be influenced by a popular public perception that vacation rentals have
reduced the availability of affordable long-term rentals. The lack of affordable
housing is indeed an issue in Estes Park in that many of the workforce cannot find
an affordable place to live in town. The "CAST Report and the Estes Park Area
Housing Needs Study" are referenced in the Position Paper and are being used to
justify increased regulation and limitations on vacation rental homes by
suggesting vacation rentals are reducing the number of affordable homes
available in the Estes Park area. Unfortunately, what the studies do not address is
specific local neighborhoods (like Windcliff) or their current real estate values. It
should surprise none of us that our homes were never really candidates for ever
being considered a valid source of "affordable housing." In fact, the average price
of detached homes in the Estes Park area is in excess of $480,000 according to
available MLS data. The average price of homes in Windcliff is significantly higher.
I find it puzzling that the Planning Commission believes that market prices of
vacation rental homes makes very many of them practical as affordable housing.
The Commission intends to establish a cap on vacation rentals of 750 permits. The
Cap is based on Licensed or Permitted vacation rentals. We have complied with
the current requirements and have a license now. If the currently "illegal" rentals
all seek licensing there will be a shortage of 300 permits. It appears to me that the
Cap is partially designed to punish currently unlicensed rentals rather than
encouraging all vacation rentals to become licensed or permitted.
The Position Document does not say that existing permitted or licensed rentals
have priority for renewals. The very existence of a Cap will impact the real estate
market for second homes when the Buyer wants the option of vacation rentals.
2
All realtors will have to disclose to Buyers that there is a Cap and there is no
mechanism for a Buyer to be assured that he or she can get a license or permit
before they commit to a purchase. At Windcliff most homes are second homes,
and about a third of the homes or condos are in short-term rentals. It is
indisputable to me that income opportunity is baked into the market for second
homes, and if this opportunity is restricted Buyers will go elsewhere.
The Position Document says plainly that rental permits are not transferrable to
new owners of the property. However, I believe that from a legal standpoint, the
permits are assigned to the property, not the individual.
In general, the proposed new regulations are common sense and already long in-
practice at Windcliff. We don't anticipate even needing changes to policies in the
Windcliff Properties rental program. If anything, these new regulations will just
require other operators in the Estes area to bring their operations up to the high
standards long established and in practice at Windcliff. However, the
establishment of a cap on permits, the lack of priority for current permit holders to
renew permits (or some kind of "grandfathering"), and the negative impact on
property values are of great concern. I suggest that the problems with vacation
rentals experienced in some other developments or locations be addressed
through more stringent enforcement actions rather than bundles of new
regulations affecting everyone — problem or not.
3
11/15/2016
From: Mick Scarpella
Estes Park Vacation Rental Owner/ 5 bedrooms
Member Vacation Rental Task Force on 9+ Occupants
Cell #: 970-227-2937 email; mjscarpella@comcast.net
To: All Members Estes Valley Planning Commission
Dear Commissioners,
I attended your public meeting on November 15, 2016 and spoke in response to
your Vacation Rental Position Document Draft regarding 9+ occupancy within
vacation rentals located in Estes Park and the Estes Valley. I attempted to clarify the
relationship of grandfathering existing 9+ occupancy vacation rentals and location
requirements in the Estes Valley Vacation Rental Task Force 9 & Above Occupancy
Recommendations. Unfortunately it was difficult to collect my thoughts and organize
them having just received your document at the meeting.
I would like to attempt to clarify my thinking in this letter.
First let me say that your support of 13 of the 15 recommendations set forth by the
Vacation Rental Task Force and your willingness to incorporate them into the code
language for 8 and under and 9+ does not accurately reflect the intent of the Task
Force and it's recommendations. Let me explain.
The Vacation Rental Task Force was charged with developing recommendations
concerning the regulation of vacation rentals that will accommodate 9 or more
individuals. This presupposed that the Estes Park Board of Trustees and the Larimer
County Commissioners would allow 9+ Vacation Rentals—a presupposition you do
not operate under. For this purpose the Task Force was composed of individuals
holding various and opposing views on the subject of vacation rentals that
accommodate 9 or more.
As such the only way we were able to develop recommended regulations was to
compromise on those individually held views to develop regulations that would be
passed with a consensus or equitable majority. This in turn sometimes required
trade-offs from regulation to regulation as a means of shifting no votes to yes votes
and occurred throughout the process on both sides.
In other words, the entire set of Task Force generated regulations, summarized in
Larimer County Community Development Director, COL Robert "Terry" Gilbert's
Document of August 23, 2016, is a NEGOTIATED RECOMMENDATION and must be
understood as a whole. It is a misrepresentation of the Task Force Results to
incorporate only a part of the Task force recommendations as a foundation of your
recommendations.
Please hear me out. The Vacation Rental Task Force spent a lot of time on
"Grandfathering" and "Location Requirements" and found that these two issues
were intertwined. As the discussion progressed it became obvious that we would
not be able to proceed with determining an agreeable lot size and setback
requirement for future 9+ Vacation Rentals without first settling the
Grandfathering issue.
I pointed out that I could not in good faith compromise to a lot size I knew was
larger than that of many of the vacation rental properties whose owners I
represented without first developing a pathway for those existing properties who
had the capacity (4 or more bedrooms) to operate as 9+ Vacation Rentals. A
majority of the Task Force Members agreed with me so we first negotiated a set of
guidelines, for what we referred to as Grandfathering of 9/a bove Vacation Rentals
(page 11 of the above mentioned Task Force document), that would be fair to all
of those existing properties that have 4 or more bedrooms and have the
potential to exceed the maximum occupancy of 8. We voted to accept them, and
then returned to Location Requirements, which included lot size and setback for
future applicants (page 12 of the above mentioned Task Force Document).
In your attempt, "To be fair to the existing units that exceed this number,"
(maximum of 8 occupants) you included in the specific standards lot size of 1 acre
and setback of 25ft, as can be found in your addendum titled Specific
Recommendations Section. You further stated that you were using Task Force
Recommendations as specific standards. This was in error as lot size of 1 acre and
set back of 25ft was intended by the Task Force to be a specific requirement for
future applicants. Your error arises out of the fact that you threw out page 11,
Grandfathering of 9/above Vacation Rentals without seeing it as an integral part
of page 12, Location Requirements. Page 11, Grandfathering specifically says that;
"Location on a lot less than one acre would be grandfathered," and "Existing setback
of less than 25ft would be grandfathered."
I bring all of this up because your error unfairly eliminates a large portion of the
property owners you are attempting to be fair to, leaving them no pathway to being
licensed/permitted as a 9/above Vacation Rental Owner. I would also like to point
out that the terminology in your Vacation Rental Position Document Draft; "To be
fair to the existing units that exceed..." is the very definition of the term
"Grandfathering of 9/above Vacation Rental" in our Task Force Document. I
believe the language could be interchanged in either document and the meaning
would not be altered.
I hope this clarifies why I suggest that the Estes Valley Planning Commission revisit
the "Grandfathering of 9/above Vacation Rentals" on page 11 and "Location
Requirements" on page 12 of the Vacation Rental Task Force Recommendations On
Vacation Rentals For 9 Or More Occupants and reconsider what it would look like to
be fair to those units that have 4 or more bedrooms (have existing capacity for
9/above) and are currently permitted/licensed as 8/below prior to July 1, 2016.
My property at 921 Old Ranger Dr. is .5 acres yet works well for a five-bedroom (12
occupants) vacation rental. I would be happy to show it to anyone interested.
Thank you for taking the time to hear me.
Sincerely,
Mick Scarpella
Vacation rental regulations
1 message
Michael Bryant <Chippermaninc@msn.com>
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Dear members of the planning commission:
I cannot speak for others but only for my own situation and from that of people out
here in California I have interfaced with.
I have my rental in Little Valley only rented around 31 days per year despite my best
efforts. Partly is because of the rate, and mostly because it was my primary home
and I am extremely picky about the tenants. There has never been a noise or
nuisance issue, nor do I rent to large parties. Of course, that is my choice, so in that
respect I may be different. However, these people spend most of their time in the
Park or eating out, and like any tourists, drop considerable dollars in the town. If we
eliminate vacation rentals, which restrictive regulations regarding sprinklers and ADA
access surely would, the Town does not benefit in any way, in fact it loses revenue.
Full time renters, which are not candidates in a house such as mine, spend their
money mostly out of town in Fort Collins , Loveland, or Longmont. The economic
impact to the town will be severe if the restrictions are also.
I know many people out here in Santa Monica and Dana Point that have been on the
receiving end of Air B&B and VRBO restrictions and just have given up, either
leaving the property vacant or selling it. No one wins in that situation. My weekly
tenants do almost no damage to the propety compared to what a long term renter
would do. This argument about affordable housing for workers is a joke. It never has
and never will be solved in a resort town. Look at Aspen and Telluride for
enlightenment on that. The facts are that no one wants low end housing in their back
yard, it won't get approved, and most of our businesses are too seasonal to support
it anyway.
The only good I can see from increased and financially crippling regulations is that
with the demise of rentals, the Town can get rid of the compliance ofiicers it hired to
enforce the code.
However, i doubt this savings would offset the increase in sales tax that comes from
the part time tenants. For the rest of us, it is pure economics.
Thanks for your consideration,
Michael Bryant 2148 Ocana Ave. Long Beach, CA 90815 (714)326-8613 Cell
Nov 17, 2016 at 4:18 PM 8 2a18 6
4//- 0
4.40%
7.
As you approach the meeting on November 29 I would hope y input here would
weigh along with others in tempering your final decision.
I
ESTES —,fi)*PARK
Vacation Rental Owner feedback
1 message
Nancy <nancyhage@att.net> Thu, No' 1.7, 2016 at 11
To: planning@estes.org • Cc: donnelt@larimer.org, Igaiter@larimerorg, johnsosw@co.larimerco.us, Tajirsa@gmail.com, wkoenig@estes.drgH'4
bholcomb@estes.org, wnelson@estes.org, rnorris@estes.org, cwalker@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org, Nancy Cu n
<acullen2@kc.rr.corn>, Jim Hage <jimwhage@att.net>, Kathy And Tim Hardin <kathyhardin@smsd.org>
To The Planning Commission, The Estes Park Board of Trustees and The County Commissioners.
This letter is to represent the view point of one property owner in Estes Park. Our family is scattered across the United
States and none of us can be present for your upcoming meetings. We understand new regulations are being proposed
that may unintentionally make it very difficult for us to maintain our much loved cabin in the mountains. We would like
to be added to the voices that ask for understanding and cooperation from your governmental bodies regarding our needs
as long term part time residents of Estes Park.
Our grandfather bought a piece of property in Estes in 1926 and proceeded to bring his wife and three children here every
summer of their lives. One of those children was our mother who was 6 years old at the time Grandpa bought their
cabin. She in turn came to Estes every year of all her wonderful 90 years. In the 50's she and her husband built a 2nd
cabin on that same hill. So did her sister's family. We, now as the next generation, are the very fortunate recipients of
this legacy and the family cabin. We and our children and grandchildren all love our cabin and come every year
ourselves. However, the times have changed and keeping a cabin up and paying the taxes as you know is no minor
investment. No one in our family can do it on our own. We all pitch in, however, even with that, the expenses are
greater than our ability to contribute, so we decided renting our beloved place to other people who also love Estes was a
good answer. We have been diligent about complying with all the current laws...getting a license, paying taxes and only
renting to 8 or fewer people. This has allowed us to keep our tradition alive for ourselves and the upcoming 5th
generation, while at the same time allowing others who rent from us to share in the great outdoors of the Rocky
Mountains. We have kept a guest log from our renters and many of them consider our home a home away from home
coming back year after year.
In our minds allowing homeowners to rent part time is a win/win for both Estes and us. Estes needs rentals to keep the
visitors pouring in every summer. Creating laws that will put undue financial burdens on property owners would be like
putting on the brakes to the town's income stream. Without the many private rentals that exist currently, many families
could not afford to come to Estes. Renting hotel or motel rooms for a family of 8 would break the bank not to mention
having no kitchen to fix their own meals part of the time. Families want a home in which to vacation.
Specifically we would like to speak to two of your agenda items:
1. We would not turn our cabin into a long term rental if we cannot continue to rent it on a short term basis
2. We feel asking property owners to install a sprinkler system is a commercial application that is totally unnecessary in
a private home.
Thank you for considering our concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
Property Owners at 2650 Tunnel Road
Jim and Nancy Hage
Andy and Nancy Cullen
Tim and Kathy Hardin
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>
vacation rentals
2 messages
Christina Simants <csimants@maxwellschools.org>
To: planning@estes.org
Dear planning commission:
I wanted to write to you regarding the vacation rental situation in your beautiful town.
I
ESTES —[I)1PARK
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>
n, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:09 PM
I am a reading specialist in Nebraska and my husband is a lab technician for the American Red Cross. We fell in love
with your town and decided it is where we wanted to make our home for our retirement years. I am able to retire at age
57 and my husband is 52 so we have many good working years left that we wanted to spend in Estes shops. We listed
our house and attempted to find a permanent home in Estes. Sadly, we had to abandon our dream.
Affordable housing was not available and yet, we passed so many empty homes that did not allow year-round living.
We understand that your economy is based on tourism and that includes rentals.
But we would have been excellent members of your community. We have a guaranteed salary, are healthy, avid
volunteers, and just nice people.
We have two daughters who hope to settle in Colorado as well.
So I just wanted to let you know that if the housing market opened up a little, your community would grow with people
like us who would love to be a part of your community.
We still hope that maybe someday, we will find a home there.
Thanks for listening,
Christina and Albert Simants
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:13 PM
To: Christina Simants <csimants@maxwellschools.org>
Cc: Planning commdev <planning@estes.org>
Christina & Albert -
Thank you for your comment. I will post it to the Town website and include it in the materials for the Planning
Commissioners. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Karen Thompson
Executive Assistant
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
Phone: 970-577-3721
Fax: 970-586-0249
kthompson@estes.org
[Quoted text hidden]
A
EP
PARK
Karen Thompson ckthompson@estes.org>
ESTES
Short Term Rentals
1 message
James Gunlicks <jimgunlicks@gmail.corn> Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 8:33 AM
To: planning@estes.org
Planning Commission Members: It is our understanding that you will soon make your final decisions on short term rental
rules. My wife and I have owned and managed our rental house for over ten years. We are licensed and collect and pay
all sales and lodging taxes. We respect the residential nature of our neighborhood and have a wonderful relationship with
our neighbors. We screen our renters, comply with all town ordinances and there have been no complaints registered
with the city on our property. Our home, almost 100 years old, began as a vacation retreat in the 1920's and operated as
a bed and breakfast for decades. When we bought it we continued to operate it as a bed and breakfast but changed our
business plan to short term rentals when it became obvious that today's BandB guests want a private bathroom with
every bedroom.
Our major concern is over two proposed requirements: Installing a sprinkler system inside the house and making the
house ADA compliant. Neither requirement contributes to keeping the residential nature of the neighborhood intact
and singling out short term rentals for this requirement would be unfair. Sprinklers and ADA compliance are not required
in BandB's or long term rentals. We are concerned about the safety of our guests and already have fire alarms, CO2
monitors, fire extinguishers, motion lights and power failure lights. We replaced the wood burning fireplace with gas logs
and replaced the wood shake shingles with a fire resistant metal roof. We passed our insurance company's inspection
with no issues. The sprinkler system would be expensive to retrofit as would making the house ADA compliant. I do
not know how we could successfully modify our historic home with all the necessary ramps and other accommodations.
It has been suggested by some that the real purpose behind support for these two requirements is to discourage short
term rentals in the hope that owners will convert them to long term rentals to help alleviate the work force housing
shortage in Estes Park. I certainly don't know if this is true, but i do believe there are other viable solutions to this
issue.
We are respectfully asking that you not approve these two requirements. At the least, we would ask that you
"grandfather" current short term rental properties. We purchased this house believing that we would be able to provide a
charming, comfortable and affordable vacation home for families visiting Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park
while also providing us some additional income. We want to continue without facing additional expense and ruining the
nature of our historic house. We would not be able to make the numbers work with long term rentals. Thank you for
your consideration. Sincerely, Jim and Lois Gunlicks.
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org >
Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:57 AM
A
E 5 TES EP ,PARK
Vacation Rental Estes Park
2 messages
Diana Schubert <info@eppinecreekcabins.com>
To: planning@estes.org
Dear Planning Commission,.
We are Colorado natives and have lived in Estes Park for the last 30 years and have been self employed as long. We
have had a vacation home for the last 10 years. The first thing we would like to say is that our vacation home is for
family and friends and will never be used for a long term rental. We do use it as a vacation rental property when not in
use by family or friends. We do abide by all taxes and regulations that you have set forth.
If you decide to put some of the other regulations upon us like a sprinkling system, which would be a huge financial
burden, then I feel you should have that same regulation for long term rentals, private homes, and all businesses. It
does not make since to us why that would even be considered as they are privately owned and insured.
As for neighbor complaints. Most of who are complaining, as we've seen at the meetings, are ones who live in
neighborhoods. As some maybe legitimate complaints I feel you need to go after those particular homes not the ones
who are compliant. It seems like most of the folks have moved here from other states, which we assume they were
once visitors here who might even have used a vacation rental or two and had decided they would like to live here
permanently. They must understand this is and has been a tourist town for many decades and the vacation rentals have
been around almost that long.
I believe our rentals bring in guests who want to stay longer then they really could of in hotels or motels. Also it is hard
to have your whole family stay in 2 or 3 rooms when they want to share the experience together. They like to have
kitchens in these homes which in turn buy groceries. They love shopping downtown and always ask us
what restaurants we would recommend. Also it brings more folks in for the holidays, and who can cook a whole
Thanksgiving dinner in a hotel room.
The one other thing that we are confused about is where is it written that it is our responsibility as home owners to be
concerned for the employees of businesses. We have employees and they either live here or they drive up from the
valley. It was never our responsibility to find them housing. If the town feels its there responsibility then they should
build employee housing. Don't try and put it on us. We do not believe anyone who bought a second home here in Estes
was thinking of an employee housing problem. That is the businesses problem not ours. Maybe they should try hiring
local, as we have, then they would not have that issue and why are they hiring employees who have no way of living
here any way. I believe that should be a requirement like owning a car so they can get to work. Doesn't make since to us
at all.
Thank you,
Jeff and Diana Schubert
Pine Creek Cabins
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 1:54 PM
To: Diana Schubert <info@eppinecreekcabins.com>
Cc: Planning commdev <planning@estes.org>
Jeff & Diana -
Thank you for your comment. I will post it to the Town website and include it in the materials for the Planning
Commissioners' November 29th meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Karen Thompson
Executive Assistant
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
Phone: 970-577-3721
Fax: 970-586-0249
kthompson@estes.org
[Quoted text hidden]
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>
Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 7:24 AM
A
E S T E S —P .PARK
Estes Park Vacation Rentals
2 messages
Lori Zimmerman <elkridgegirl@hotmail.com>
To: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Hello Commissioners,
Thank you for all the hard work you have done regarding this topic. I realize it is very difficult to establish regulations
and keep both sides relatively happy.
I have one major concern - The number of people being able to reside in a VR home. We all know Estes Park is a
FAMILY community. Estes Park caters to FAMILIES and advertises for FAMILIES to experience the beautiful town,
RMNP, etc. that we all love.
When visitors are looking on web sites for homes that will accommodate their FAMILY, they do so by the number of
bedrooms a house has to offer. Their FAMILY could consist of Mom, Dad, their 2 married kids, maybe 4 grandkids and
great grandma and grandpa - for a total of 12 (and most likely 3 vehicles). They want to stay together as a FAMILY and
make memories of their wonderful vacation to Estes Park. We should let them have those memories and not restrict the
size of their FAMILY.
PLEASE consider allowing VR homes to rent based on the size of their home and not the size of their property/lot. I am
asking for 2 people per bedroom plus 2 (5 bedroom VR home would be a maximum of 12 people).
Do we want potential visitors calling the city of Estes Park asking "why their is a maximum of 8 even though many of
the homes can handle more?" Please allow Estes Park to make FAMILY MEMORIES TOGETHER!
Best regards,
Lori Zimmerman
680 MacGregor Ave
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:03 AM
To: Lori Zimmerman <elkridgegirl@hotmail.com >
Cc: "planning@estes.org" <planning@estes.org>
Lori -
Thank you for your comment. I will post it to the Town website and include it in the materials for the Planning
Commissioners' November 29th meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Karen Thompson
Executive Assistant
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
Phone: 970-577-3721
Fax: 970-586-0249
kthompson@estes.org
[Quoted text hidden]
Board Request for Information regarding Vacation Homes
1 message
Elizabeth Fogarty <efogarty@visitestespark.com > Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:24 PM
To: Bob Holcomb <bholcomb@estes.org >, Frank Lancaster <flancaster@estes.org >, Ron Norris <rnorris@estes.org >,
Ward Nelson <wnelson@estes.org>, Wendy Koenig <wkoenig@estes.org>, Patrick Martchink <pmartchink@estes.org >,
Todd Jirsa <tjirsa@estes.org>, Cody Walker <cwalker@estes.org >, JOHNSON STEVE <JohnsoSW@co.larimer.co.us>,
Donnelly Torn <tdonnelly@larimer.org>, Gaiter Lew Ill <gaiterl@larimer.org>, planning@estes.org ,
don@darlingenterprise.com
Cc: Hoffmann Linda <lhoffmann@larimer.org>, Scott Webermeier <jwebo@aol.com >, Lindsay La
<lindsaylamson@hotmail.com >
Hello Everyone,
I was recently asked by an individual on one of the boards to share data which includes:
1. How many short term vacation rentals used to be long term or will become long term if short term rentals
restricted or eliminated.
2. Have the short term vacation rentals begun paying taxes (are they truly above ground)?
The Estes Area Lodging Association managed a survey in September 2016 asking private vacation homes the short term vs. long
term question. Please see the attached where over 94% stated they do not intend to change to a long term rental, along with
other relevant questions and answers. It will take just 2 minutes to review the survey data attached.
The below information shares growth in short term vacation rental remittances to Visit Estes Park.
Over the last five years, from 2012 until 2016, the number of accounts remitting lodging taxes has increased by 45%.
Most of this growth can be reasonably attributed to vacation homes due to lack of new hotel/motel inventory.
Most of the increase in the number of vacation homes remitting lodging tax (about two-thirds of the increase), has taken place
in the last two years.
Both VEP and EALA leadership authorized my sharing this info., none of which is proprietary.
Feel free to contact any of us with questions. We appreciate your dedication to this important issue as we all try to
recommend suggestions which balance the needs of the community, for both businesses and residents, while also supporting the
tourism industry which helps to sustain everyone in the Estes area including the services we all utilize. It's a difficult task, but
we are confident we can all compromise and reach enforceable parameters and regulations.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth Fogarty
President Et CEO
Visit Estes Park I The Destination Marketing Organization
1200 Graves Ave, PO Box 4426, Estes Park, CO 80517
EFogarty@VisitEstesPark.com
Office: 970-586-0500 x1222
1.3 Vacation Home Survey Summary Responses.pdf
45K
Private Vacation Home Survey
Has your house(s) ever been a long term
rental under your ownership?
Answered: 201 Skipped: 2
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 104%
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
13.93% 28
No
86.07% 173
Total
201
2/7
Private Vacation Home Survey
Do you ever intend to change your short
term vacation home to a long term rental?
Answered: 198 Skipped: 5
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
5.56% 11
No
94.44% 187
Total
198
3/7
Private Vacation Home Survey
Do you intend to live in your short term
vacation home rental at some point?
Answered: 191 Skipped: 12
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 190%
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
53.40% 102
No
46.60% 89
Total
191
4/7
Yes
No
Private Vacation Home Survey
° - Do you visit/stay at your short term
vacation home rental one or more times
throughout the year for personal use?
Answered: 201 Skipped 2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
60%
70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
87.06% 175
No
12.94% 26
Total
201
5/7
Private Vacation Home Survey
If short term vacation homes are
eliminated or capped in Estes, and you are
not allowed to rent less than 30 days, would
you change your vacation home to a long
term rental?
Answered: 189 Skipped: 14
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
12.17% 23
No
87.83% 166
Total
189
6/7
Private Vacation Home Survey
Was your home an occupied long term
rental when you purchased it?
Answered: 202 Skipped 1
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
4.95% 10
No
95.05% 192
Total
202
7/7
November 15, 2016 - Shared at Planning Commission Board Meeting Public Comment
This letter is on behalf of the Jane Livingston, the EALA Vacation Rental Task Force
Member
Thank you for your service and your attention to this matter.
Nov 5 2016
The Task Force was formed and chosen by the Larimer County-Cakii*4imirspnd the
Town of Estes Park Trustees with the stated purpose of developing recommendations
for Vacation Rental Homes housing 9 or more occupants. The Task Force spent
countless hours (over 400 person hours) on developing the proposed
recommendations.
Anyone who has been involved with the process knows that the number one concern
has been enforcement and that the vast majority of vacation rental homes do not
present ongoing problems. Eliminating well managed larger vacation rental homes,
hurts the economic health and viability of Estes Park and positions Estes Park as not
family friendly which is the opposite foundation upon which the Estes Park economy has
been built. There are many people in the community who have moved into the
community and are not economically integrated into Estes Park. They are not
economically integrated into Estes Park because they do not depend on a job in Estes
Park nor do they own a business in Estes Park. Their source of income is derived from
some other means than the Estes Park economy. The lives of business owners,
cleaners, maintenance people etc. are dependent on the Estes Park economy. Estes
Park receives 60% of its income from Tourism. Like it or not, those are the facts and
those have been the facts for as far back as we can see in history. The decisions
about Vacation Rental homes are not just about property, but they are about the very
fabric upon which Estes Park was established and they will impact the people who work
in the industry and every business owner, every medical personnel and every service
business that receives revenue from Vacation Rental Home guests or owners. I urge
you to consider these facts carefully and to follow the Task Force Recommendations or
you are putting the economic health of Estes Park at risk and your friend's and
neighbor's businesses at risk, not to mention the countless jobs you will be putting at
risk and the viability of the Estes Park Medical Center.
Estes Park Town
Tourism ' Non Tourism
In addition, regarding the data that is included in the Planning Commission's Draft
Position Paper, it is noted that in 2010 the Town Board approved "Use by Right". I am
not sure what that is referencing since the Town passed an ordinance for licensing
vacation rentals in 2004 and designated the application of the regulation applied to
zoning districts of the Town: RE-1, RE, E-1, R, R-1, R-2 and R-M. The right to have a
Vacation Home Rental in a Residential Zoning District was clearly available in 2004.
Therefore any correlation between increase in licensing of vacation homes in 2010
being attributable to "use by right" is not correct. I have included a copy of the
Ordinance that was passed in 2004 as a reference.
Further, the increase in licensing of vacation rental homes is not an indicator of the
increase in vacation rental homes as we know there have been many vacation rental
homes that did not get licenses so using the Licensing of Vacation Rental Homes as a
measurement for actual number of vacation rental homes is not accurate.
Lastly, in 2010 the USA was in the midst of the real estate market crash. In July of
2010, a local Estes Park realtor published this "If you are considering selling your home,
I am recommending you take a hard look at your motivation for selling. If you absolutely
have to sell and sell quickly, you will need to be very aggressive with your offer price. If
you are considering selling, and are fishing for that one perfect buyer to pay your price,
please don't list your home. The amount of inventory we already have far
outweighs the amount of people looking to buy a home in Estes Park. Additional
inventory will only decrease prices and increase the time it takes to sell a home."
In July of 2010, there were 389 active listings for condos and townhomes. Today in
2016 there are 92 active listings for condos and townhomes. That is less than twenty
five percent of what was available in 2010. I bring this up because for several years,
hardly any building went on in Estes Park or anywhere else in the USA due to the real
estate crash and the excess inventory. The shortage of homes in Estes Park is not
attributable to long term rental homes being converted to Vacation Rental homes, it is
much more attributable to the health of the economy and the fact that hardly any
building occurred for years. When the next recession hits, which it will, there will be
more homes than can be sold or rented in Estes Park again.
Thank you for your time and attention.
ORDINANCE NO. 4-04
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5,20 BUSINESS L
AND REPEALING CHAPTER 5.35 SHORT TERM RENTA
TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
WHEREAS, it is necessary for Chapter 5.20 of the Municipal Code to be
amended with regard to licensing of accommodation units and vacation homes; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to repeal Chapter 5.35 Short Term Rentals from the
Municipal Code and include a significant portion of said repealed section within a new
Section 5.20.120 of the Municipal Code, and;
WHEREAS, it is necessary to adopt certain terms and restrictions on the use,
occupation and renting of vacation homes within the Town in order to maintain the
residential character of neighborhoods within the Town, and;
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, has
determined it is in the best interest of the Town to amend the Municipal Code of the
Town of Estes Park, Colorado by the adoption of this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: Sections 5.20.010, 5.20.020 Subsections (1), (2), (2.1) & (2.2), 5.20.030
Subsections (2) & (5), 5.20.040, 5.20 060, 5.20.070, 5.20.080 and 5.20.100 shall be
amended to read as follows:
Section 5.20.010 Business License Fee
(1) There is imposed a business license fee on the privilege of carrying on or
engaging in any business, profession or occupation within the Town, which business,
profession or occupation consists of the selling of goods, wares, merchandise or
service; the performing or rendering of service, for charge, the leasing, renting or
furnishing of accommodation units; and the carrying on or engaging in any
nonresident business or community special event. Each business, profession or
occupation conducted at a separate physical location, regardless of ownership, shall
pay a business license fee.
(2) Each individual accommodation unit, which is separately owned, including, but
not limited to, a condominium unit, shall pay a business license fee for the individual
unit as provided in Section 5.20. An entity or company managing one or more
accommodation units, including but not limited to, condominium units, shall also pay a
business license fee for the management business separate from the business
license fee paid by the owner of the individual accommodation unit.
Section 5.20.020 Definitions - Subsections (1), (2), (2.1) & (2.2)
In this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:
(1) Accommodation means the leasing, renting or furnishing of any room, mobile
home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site or other area in any hotel, motel, guest
house, bed and breakfast, apartment, dormitory, mobile home park, recreational
vehicle park or campground, any single-family dwelling, duplex, multiple family
dwelling, condominium unit, vacation home or any such similar place to any person
who, for a consideration, uses, possesses or has the right to use or possess such
dwelling, room, single-family dwelling, duplex unit, multiple-family unit, condominium
unit, vacation home, site or other accommodation for a total continuous duration of
less than thirty (30) days.
(2) Accommodation unit means each individual room, set of rooms, site, single-
family dwelling, duplex unit, multiple-family unit, condominium unit, vacation home or
divided area rented, leased or occupied on a unit basis in an accommodation.
(2.1) Vacation home shall mean a residential dwelling unit, as defined in the Estes
Valley Development Code, that is located within a residential zoning district and is
rented, leased or occupied on a unit basis as an accommodation.
(2.2) Accommodation Site shall mean a site consisting of one or more
accommodation units, including, but not limited to condominium units, which are
located on one individual parcel of real property and under management control for
rental purposes of an agent, entity or agency.
Section 5.20.030 Amount of License Fee - Subsections (2) & (5)
(2) Accommodations license: five (5) units or less, one hundred fifty dollars
($150.00) per year; six (6) to twenty (20) units, two hundred sixty dollars ($260.00) per
year; twenty-one (21) units or more, three hundred seventy-five dollars ($375.00) per
year. Each individual accommodation site shall pay a business license fee based upon
the number of units on the individual accommodation site.
(5) Individual accommodation unit. Any individual accommodation unit including,
but not limited to a condominium unit, which is not part of an accommodation site, shall
pay a business license fee of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per year.
Section 5.20.040 Business License Required
Every person who is the owner of any business, profession, occupation or
accommodation unit including owners of multiple businesses at separate physical
2
locations, which is subject to the business license fee set forth in this Chapter, shall
obtain a business license from the Town prior to engaging in any business, profession,
occupation or accommodation within the Town.
Section 5.20.060 Payment of License Fee
The owner of each business, profession, occupation or accommodation unit subject to
the provisions of this Chapter shall pay the business license fee for each calendar year
in which the owner engages in any business, profession, occupation or accommodation
within the Town as follows:
(1) One-half (1/2) the business license fee may be paid at any time, provided
that full payment is required on or before June 30 of each calendar year.
(2) Any new business, profession, occupation or accommodation which begins
its business on or after January 1 and on or before June 30 shall pay the full amount of
the business license fee. Any new business, profession, occupation or accommodation
which begins its business on or after July 1 and on or before September 30 shall pay
one-half (1/2) of the business license fee. Any new business, profession, occupation or
accommodation which begins its business on or after October 1 and on or before
December 31 shall pay one-fourth (1/4) of the business license fee. All business
license fees subject to this Subsection (2) shall be due and payable upon submittal of
an application to the Town Clerk's office.
(3) In the event any existing business license is not renewed in the subsequent
calendar year on or before July 1, the business license shall be deemed to have lapsed.
A new business license fee in full must be paid by the owner. There shall be no
proration of this business license fee.
Section 5.20.070 Violation
It shall be a violation of this Chapter for an owner of a business, profession, occupation
or accommodation or any person subject to the business license fee imposed herein to
fail or refuse to make payment to the Town of the fee or in any other manner to evade
the collection and payment of the fee imposed by this Chapter.
Section 5.20.080 Revocation of License
The Town, after giving written notice to the owner of any business, profession,
occupation or accommodation who has failed to pay the fee in accordance with Section
5.20.060 may revoke the license of the owner. Upon revocation of the license, the
owner's right and privilege to conduct the business, profession, occupation or
accommodation within the Town is terminated.
3
Section 5.20.100 5.20.100 Inspections
The Town shall be entitled at any time, upon reasonable notice to the owner of any
business, profession, occupation or accommodation, to inspect the premises occupied
by the business, profession, occupation or accommodation for the purpose of
ascertaining compliance with the terms and conditions of this Chapter. In the event that
such inspection reveals that the business license fee charged to the business,
profession, occupation or accommodation is in fact erroneous, an adjustment shall be
made by the Town of the license fee.
Section 2: Section 5.20.090 Reinstatement of License shall be deleted n its entirety.
Section 3: The Municipal Code shall be amended by the addition of Section 5.20.120
Vacation Homes in Residential Zoning Districts to read as follows:
Section 5.20.120 Vacation Homes in Residential Zoning Districts
This Section shall apply to the leasing, renting, and occupation of any vacation home
existing in the following zoning districts of the Town: RE-1, RE, E-1, E, R, R-1, R-2 and
R-M.
(a) Purpose.
The purpose of this section is to permit the leasing, renting and occupation of vacation
homes in residential zoning districts while maintaining the residential character of those
districts.
(b) Restrictions on Rentals.
The leasing, renting, or occupation of all vacation homes subject to this Section shall be
restricted as follows:
(1) Vacation homes shall not be operated in manner that is out of character with
residential uses. Phis includes vehicular traffic and noise levels that are out
of character with residential uses. Vacation homes shall be designed to be
compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with a
predominantly low-intensity and low-scale residential setting. Guest rooms
shall be integrated within the vacation home. Kitchen facilities shall be limited
to be consistent with single family residential use.
(2) A vacation home shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more than one
party with a maximum of eight (8) individual guests. The total maximum
occupancy of eight individuals shall be further limited by a maximum of two
guests per bedroom plus two individuals. In the event the vacation home is
managed by a full-time on-site manager, the vacation home may be rented,
4
itt
leased or furnished to more than one party subject to the limitations of two
guests per bedroom plus two individuals with a maximum of eight guests.
(3) No changes in the exterior appearance to accommodate each vacation home
shall be allowed, except that one (1) wall-mounted identification sign no larger
than four (4) square feet in area shall be permitted.
(4) Only one vacation home shall be permitted per lot in single family residential
districts.
(5) No recreational vehicle, as the same is defined in Chapter 13 of the Estes
Valley Development Code, tent, temporary shelter, canopy, teepee, or yurt
shall be used by any individual for living or sleeping purposes.
(6) Each vacation home is permitted a maximum of three guest vehicles on site
and parked outside at any one time. On street parking shall be prohibited.
(7) Vacation homes shall be subject to commercial utility rates for the entire
calendar year of the current license, and sales tax collection and remittance.
It is the owner's responsibility to notify the Town's Utility Billing Department
when the residence is no longer being used as a vacation home after the
license expires:.
(8) The application for a business license for any vacation home shall designate
a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be
contacted by the Town with regard to any violation of the provisions of this
Section. The person set forth on the application shall be the agent of the
owner for all purposes with regard to the issuance of the business license, the
operation of the vacation home and revocation of the business license
pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Section.
(9) Any vacation home in operation on or before November 1, 2004 and whose
owner obtained a business license from the Town for 2004 shall be entitled to
operate the vacation home to the extent of its operation on the effective date
of this Ordinance including, but not limited to, the number of guest individuals
allowed to occupy the vacation home at any one time, the number of guest
vehicles allowed to be parked on-site, and any permitted signage identifying
the operation of the vacation home. In the event the operation of the vacation
home grandfathered by this Section is abandoned for a period of one (1) year
or the owner does not maintain a business license for the vacation home in
any subsequent calendar year, the vacation home shall then be subject to all
of the terms and conditions of this Section including, but not limited to, the
number of guest individuals occupying the premise, the number of vehicles
allowed to be parked outside on-site, and the signage identifying the
operation of the vacation home.
5
(c) Violation.
It is a violation of this Section for any owner, agent, guest, and/or occupant of a vacation
home to be convicted, including a plea of no contest, of a violation of Section 9.08.010
(Disturbing the Peace) of this Code; to fail to collect and remit all required sales tax to
the State due and owing for the leasing, rental or occupation of a vacation home; to
violate any provisions of this Section; and/or to fail to acquire and pay for a business
license. For the purpose of this Section, only violations of Section 9.08.010 of this Code
which occur on the premises of the vacation home and while a vacation home is being
occupied as a vacation home shall be a violation of this Section.
(d) Revocation of license.
The Town may revoke the business license of any vacation home for violation of the
provisions of this Section as follows:
(1) The Town Clerk upon the receipt and verification of any violation of this
Section shall give written notice to the owner or agent that a violation has
occurred.
(2) Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and
conditions of this Section, within two (2) years of the date of the written
warning set forth in Subsection (1) above, the Town Clerk shall revoke the
business license by giving written notice to the owner or agent of the
revocation of the license. Said revocation shall be fore one (1) year from the
date of the notice.
(3) Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and
conditions of this Section within two (2) years after reinstatement, the Town
Clerk shall revoke the business license by giving written notice to the owner
or agent of the revocation of the business license. Said revocation shall be
for tow (2) years from the date of the notice.
Upon revocation of the business license, the owner's right to operate a-vacation home
on the property shall terminate.
(e) Appeal.
Any owner or agent who wishes to contest the written warning or the revocation of a
business license shall be entitle to request a hearing before the Town Clerk by written
notice delivered in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Town
Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the date of the warning or revocation. The Town Clerk
shall hold a hearing on the appeal and determine whether or not a violation of the
provisions of this Section has occurred. The owner shall be entitled to present any
evidence of compliance with the terms and conditions of this Section at said hearing.
The decision of the Town Clerk as to whether or not the violation occurred shall be final
and not subject to further appeal
6
Section 4: Chapter 5.35 Short Term Rentals shall be repealed in its entirety.
Section 5: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its
adoption and publication
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF T USTEES OF TH TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF
2004.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
ATTEST:
,c,citti_J (0- g_461-k-x...dsf)
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance w s introduced and read at a meeting of the
Board of Trustees on the ae ttie day of 2004, and
published in a newspap of general p blication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on
the \5' 44_ day of , 2004.
mourn funk
-0" E S rt. if
• 42.
rlst
= r• . L ' ';:e.-0.:;°.,C'Ll' pi,,,w., • ( , - .:.: ..4...2...... ,-4.••• 17 c ou 4 o (on Immo
Town Clerk
7
1_,()D GING
A 550Ct AT ION
CD
November 15, 2016 - Shared at Planning Commission Board Meeting Pub
This letter is on behalf of the Estes Area Lodging Association Board:
There continues to be allegations that there are countless complaints from neighbors due to private vacation home
rentals. Most violations are created by the lodging industry in the Accommodations and Commercial zoning — this has
been confirmed by the Estes Park Police Dept. after requests were made to separate out accommodations from
neighborhood vacation homes.
Solution: Earmark a percentage of vacation home rental licensing and approximate sales tax receipts received
through vacation home rentals for hiring enforcement staff. Any increase in sales tax revenue via short term
rentals, can be supported by an increase in enforcement staff.
Enforcement has always been the key and still is. Certainly regulations to protect guest and neighborhood safety should
be considered (based on realistic standards, not the "gotcha" of change of use), but using that to over-regulate the
industry will only force it back underground.
Data: You all have received data from Visit Estes Park which shows the industry is no longer underground. Are
there some who are still not licensed, of course. There are many non-lodging businesses in the Estes that are
not licensed as well. According to Visit Estes Park, the number of accounts in the last five years remitting taxes
to VEP has increased by 45%, and most of that increase can be attributed to short term vacation rentals due to
lack of new hotel/motel inventory.
We disagree with the data in Fred Mares report, and if given the time in the next week, can share data that is accurate
and includes the appropriate commentary necessary to interpret such data.
For example, the increase in vacation rentals was not due to the decision by town board approving "use by
right," it was due to the town beginning to send out notices to enforce licensing. Also, vacation rental data by
state is not accurate, including Wyoming which shows a total of 5 vacation homes in Mr. Mares report. A search
on VRBO today shows 577 rentals by owner, excluding management companies, in Wyoming, with 291 rental
owners, excluding management companies, in Jackson Hole which has a moratorium on vacation homes.
Assuming that Estes has a housing problem due to short term vacation rentals is not based on actual data.
Data: You all have received the Estes Area Lodging Association survey that gathered over 200 respondents with
94 percent sharing that they "do not intend to change their short term vacation home to a long term rental."
Solution: Ultimately ADU's and new housing developments in the Valley are the only realistic options to rectify
the housing crisis that has been in existence for decades in Estes Park. Finding a few vacation homes that may
become long term if their short term rental becomes illegal, will barely be a drop in the bucket with regard to
solving the housing crisis.
According to the short term rental agency legal teams, there has not been one location in the country, who created a
moratorium on short term rentals, where the industry did not go underground. Going underground does not only cause
tax evasion, but also creates a safety issue for guests of the house and neighbors. The Town nor County has the ability
to chase underground activity, regardless of industry.
Example: Private enterprise will always be many steps ahead of any governmental agency. Right now,
searching the internet makes it is easy to reveal where the vacation rentals are. Consider when that is no longer
the driving platform, which is likely soon, and it is replaced by apps or trade networks like timeshares. It will be
nearly impossible to find and shut down the underground market. Again, study the destinations across the
country who determined reasonable enforcement and regulations to support the industry, and provide
protection and comfortable conditions for guests and residents, verse those that created a moratorium.
Lodging occupancy across the country for safety and impact reasons is overwhelmingly supportive of the 2 per bedroom
plus 2 regulation. Also, the majority of the hotel industry considers an occupant as age 5 or above. Guests still register
their 5 and under child for welfare concerns, but they are not counted in the lodging industry because they are not
taking up a room or bed by themselves and are picked up by their parent when needing to exit the house in the case of
an emergency.
It is a reasonable compromise that any new build home that intends to be a full time vacation home accommodating 9
or more people, should include sprinklers. EALA has yet to find one location in the entire country where a municipality
required retrofitting sprinklers or ADA requirements. Certainly parking, trash, noise, curfews and occupancy are all
reasonable regulations that will manage the vacation home impact in the Estes Valley, regardless of residential,
accommodations or commercial area.
Finally, testing the "use by right" has already seen significant legal battles nationally. We would hope that instead of
debilitating the Town and County in legal bathes, that reasonable compromises be made, mainly structured around
enforcement and steep fines, including loss of business license determined by Town and/or County Boards in cases of
abuse.
We appreciate your time and dedication with this important issue and trust you will consider all recommendations,
especially those offered by the County — Town Task Force who spent considerable time, research and fact checking
determining their recommendations.
If you would like additional data referencing any of the points we have shared, feel free to contact the Estes Area
Lodging Association Board.
Estes Area Lodging Association
November 15th, 2016 /4,4
Shared at Planning Commission Board Meeting Public Com
Presented on behalf of the Estes Area Lodging Association Board
There are several areas of concerns in the Planning Commission Draft Proposal:
1. Applying vacation home rules to commercial and accommodation zoning properties
specifically in the area of occupancy limits and how to calculate occupancy.
2. A complete ban on any new 9 plus vacation homes and possible any 9 plus with the application
of restrictions on exciting properties.
3. A cap of 450 on vocation homes.
4. Requirement for inspection of vacation homes but not of any other use by properties.
5. A predisposition that limiting vacation homes is the solution to workforce hosing shortages.
6. An assumption that conversion of homes is "exploding" using the increase in business
licenses as the basis for that conclusion rather than acknowledging that existing vacation
home owners were simply complying with notices to obtain business licenses.
7. Encouraging the use of the Building code as a method to shut down existing vacation homes.
Thank you for your time and dedication you have for Estes Park,
EALA Board President - Lindsay Lamson
Vice President - Elizabeth Fogarty
Secretary - Kaylyn Kruger
Treasurer- Ken Arnold
Sean Jurgens, Monica Meyers, Paula Scheil, Joanne Ciezczak, Chuck Scott
A
[1:1 E5TES
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>
Vacation Rentals
1 message
Chris Johnson <cpjlawyer@gmail.com> Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:10 AM
To: planning@estes.org
Cc: jjohnson@hastingslaw.com, Ponderosa Realty <ponderosarealty@msn.com>, Lode Johnson <lorie1957@hotmail.com>
Dear commission members;
I am a property owner of a cabin located on Sanbom Drive, just outside the corporate limits of Estes Park. I bought the
property in 2010, hoping to retire there when I decide to quit working, about another six years away. In the meantime,
we rent the cabin to vacationers as well as use it ourselves when we can. My family lives in Hastings Nebraska, so
we're about seven hours away and can use the cabin often, which we do.
First, thank you for your service. I know what you are doing is on a volunteer basis. Thank you for taking the time to try
to work a solution between folks that at least say they have a competing interest. I do not think they do in reality, but
some people can't see the forest for the trees.
We follow the rules. We have had our cabin registered ever since the registration was required. We also are considerate
of neighbors, even reminding our guests that the neighbors that surround us live here and this is their home, asking them
to be considerate of those around them. It has worked well.
We rent our cabin about 16 weeks a year, more or less. I hire one of my neighbors to do our cleaning, paying her over
three thousand dollars a year. I also pay her husband to do snow removal when that's required. She has told me these
funds have made a tremendous difference in their quality of life and makes it easier for them to live in this town as well.
They are a younger couple and I'm happy to make their life easier.
We also use a broker, who with our commissions and commissions of others employs a staff, rents office space, and
owns property in the area too.
I also spend funds maintaining and improving my property. I have to keep the property up to make it desirable to stay at,
plus I want to improve it for me as I plan to live there in the not to distant future. I've put in wood floors, furniture, lots
and lots of paint, new appliances, and so much more. This spring I intend to rebuild our large wrap around deck, and
resurface our driveway. I have the ponderosa pines treated each year, so that they can survive the pine borer
infestation. In short, I think our property adds a lot to our community. We try to do good for those around us. The
things we do to the property had not been done by the previous owner, a full time resident. I have an incentive to make
the place not just good enough, but truly remarkable, and that helps the whole neighborhood.
I have no objection to reasonable regulations. Usage restrictions based upon number of bedrooms for example, or the
use of smoke and fire detectors. I would have an objection to regulations that make it to ormerous to continue to offer
the property as a vacation rental (sprinkler systems, excessive fees).
I believe there are already laws on the books concerning noise and nuisance problems that can be assessed if
vacationers are acting foolish. I would resist the temptation to try to discourage rentals through overly restrictive
regulations.
I'm sorry I cannot be present in person at the meeting today. Living as far away as I do, I like many others just can't
take the three or more days required to come to Estes for a meeting.
Thank you for considering my comments. The history of vacation rentals in the Estes Valley is strong and long lasting.
It is mutually beneficial to the area as well as owners of the properties. Resist the temptation to fix something that isn't
broken. Do not regulate if another way of dealing with an individual problem already exists. I am aware that some folks
do not want vacation rentals near them no matter how well maintained. That's just not realistic. All of us in our lives
have had some neighbors we'd rather lived somewhere else. But if they obey the law and do not create a nuisance, they
use their property as they see fit.
Thank you again,
Chris A. Johnson
Ascent. Plonk, Solutions 970-231-1178
Land Use Consultation Design Owners Representative
November 15, 2016
CE11V1
NOV 1 5 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Estes Valley Planning Commission
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
RE: Lazy B Ranch and Wranglers Development Plan
Dear Commissioner,
This letter is intended to document concerns expressed by the Mills Drive neighborhood regarding the
proposed Lazy B development plan and special review. Ascent Planning represents the perspective and
concerns about potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses from those land owners.
We suggest the amended application does not satisfy certain development code requirements or
conditions of approval and request the Commission uphold their original recommendation of denial.
Furthermore, we request the Commission forward specific findings and conditions to the Town Board for
consideration.
Potential Adverse Impacts.
Section 3.5.B requires Special Review Uses "mitigate to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse
impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services, and the environment."
The site design, operational aspects and phasing plans do not mitigate the impact on nearby land uses.
Instead the application maximizes potential adverse impacts on the Mills Drive neighborhood by failing
to use the existing RV Park entrance located on Spur 66; this introduces commercial activity into an
established residential neighborhood.
Additional potential adverse impacts to nearby land uses, as expressed by nearby land owners and
residents, include:
1. Probable impact to parking at the Rock Inn. The proposed turn-lane will eliminate at least four
parking spaces from in front of the Rock Inn and will create a situation where customers will
need to back onto the road.
2. Probable additional peak traffic on "Spur 66". Such traffic will have an adverse impact on all
Spur 66 residents and visitors, including Windcliff and the YMCA of the Rockies.
3. Probable impact from unevaluated noise emanating from the unenclosed structure.
4. Probable impact to existing parking on Mills Drive.
5. Impact to mature landscaping on Mills Drive.
6. Potential impact from unevaluated parking lot lighting.
7. Potential impact from headlines of patrons existing the parking lot (parking lot screening will not
shield headlight sweep as patrons exit the site )
8. Potential impact to fire safety and access as a result of increased traffic.
9. Potential negative impacts to spur 66/mills drive intersection (stop sign impacts all of spur, ymca,
etc).
10. Impact of RV traffic introduced onto Mills Drive (RV used the new entrance multiple times this
summer).
11. Potential impact on vacation rentals and housing values.
12. Potential for expanded uses beyond those listed in the Statement of Intent. Nearby residents
have witnessed hours of operation outside of those approved this past summer, and the statement
of intent has been revised to eliminate initial seasonal operations.
Development Code Questions:
The statement of intent includes several requested modifications and variances. The Town Engineer is
authorized to grant some of the modifications, but others are outside of the authority of the Planning
Commission or Town Board to grant and require approval from the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment.
Standards outlined in Appendix D can be waived by the Town Engineer provided that the
Engineer finds approval of such modification and/or waiver:
1. Advances the goals and purposes of this Code; and
2. Either results in less visual impact, more effective environmental or open space preservation,
relieves practical difficulties in developing a site, or results in the use of superior engineering
standards than those required by this Code.
Ascent Planning requests the Planning Commission request verification the Town Engineer has made
these findings and specifically approved the requested modifications.
7.6. Wetlands. A wetlands study has been submitted. However, this study does not identify the
boundaries of the wetlands. This information is needed before it can be determined the proposed
encroachment into the required 50' wetlands requires a modification or a variance.
7.11.D Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements. Applicant requests to "punt" the required parking
study until Phase M. This modification request does not fall within the authority of the Planning
Commission to approve.
7.11.0.2 Parking and Loading Design Standards. This modification request does not fall within the
authority of the Planning Commission to approve.
10.5.D.2. Chapter 10 addresses subdivision standards. We are not aware of any proposed subdivision at
this time. Regardless, the request does not fall within the authority of the Planning Commission to
approve. Should the applicant request a fee-in-lieu, this should be a specific request
General Questions and Concerns.
Owners and Applicants. Ascent Planning questions who the owner and applicants of this application are.
The Larimer County Assessors page lists the property owner as Elk Meadow RV Essential Group with an
Ascent. Planning Soltans 970-231-1178
Land Use Consultation Design Owners Representative
address in Golden CO; this does not match the owner listed on the application. The applicant is listed as
Michelle Oliver; no mention of Lazy B Ranch and Wrangler is listed on the application.
Parking. The parking study assumes 3.75 people per vehicle. Anecdotal evidence from this past summer
indicate the approximately 50 people per night with approximately 25-30 vehicles per night. This equates
to approximately 2-3 people per vehicle, which results in 250 required parking spaces. Even if we use the
stated 3.75 people per vehicle, the parking lot still does not satisfy the anticipated demand.
Neighborhood residents are concerned about potential adverse impact of overflow parking onto Mills
Drive. Reduced levels of parking are allowed with submittal and approval of a parking study based on
ITE estimates. No parking study is posted on the Town website.
Use and Operation. The Mills Drive neighborhood has expressed concern that the use will change from a
few hours a day for a few weeks a year (as noted in the original statement of intent) to a full-time year-
round use.
Unknown Potential Conflicts. Separation of non-compatible land uses is the basic underlying concept of
zoning. Commercial and residential land uses have inherent land use conflicts. Approval of this
application, with so many unresolved questions, is likely to have long-lasting neighborhood conflicts that
will require on-going compliance issues.
Mitigation Efforts. A principal concern expressed by the Mills Drive neighborhood is that the applicant
has not offered any mitigation efforts and continues to ignore their concerns. This attitude has in turn left
Mills Drive owners and residents with the certainty that the potential adverse impacts have not been
mitigated to the maximum extent feasible: how can they be when the applicant has not even met with
those impacted?
Findings and Conditions. We request the Commission recommend disapproval, with the following
findings:
I. The application maximizes potential adverse impact on nearby land uses.
2. The revised application does not comply with conditions of approval.
3. The application does not comply with the Estes Valley Development Code, as outlined in
previous letters and above.
4. Approval of the application is not consistent with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan.
5. Any decision by the Town Board to overturn this recommendation should include conditions to
mitigate impact of truck traffic:
a. Utilize the existing Spur 66 entrance and keep commercial traffic off Mills Drive.
b. Formally dedicate 45-feet of right-of-way for Mills Drive concurrent with utility
easement (construction plan phase).
a. Ensure sidewalk is built at same time as rebuilt Mills Drive.
b. Ensure all landscaping removed for construction of Mills Drive be replaced and
maintained for three years. This includes affected landscaping located on the south side
of the road.
c. Require a parking easement be granted on an equal parts basis of parking lost as result of
turn lane. This should be recorded prior to construction of turn-lane. (approximately
6,000-8,000 s.f.), to be located adjacent to the Rock Inn property. No access through the
RV Park property is requested. We believe this request to provide space for replacement
parking of the parking lost as a result of the turn-lane is the minimum mitigation (not
maximum as required by code) required.
d. This potential parking area should be accessible from the Rock Inn parking lot as no
additional curb cuts are allowed through the RV Park property.
e. Times of operation noted in the statement of intent be included as specific conditions of
approval.
f. Parking lot lighting shall be turned off during non-operating hours.
g. Ensure adequate collateral is submitted to allow completion or removal of the structure
should the Lazy B not succeed.
Thank you for your continued diligence in upholding the development code and interests of all residents
of the Estes Valley.
Respectfully,
Paa I airt
David W. Shirk, AICP, MUP
Principal
Estes Valley Vacation Rental Data v2.0
VR Data Overview package 110516 frm 110116
Larimer County Assessor’s database, 07/15/16
There are approximately 6500 residential units in the Valley
Approximately 3100 are owned by non-Valley residents
o 3100/6500 = 48% of residences are owned by non-residents
20% by non-Valley Colorado owners
28% by out of state owners
Host Compliance (iCompass) data, 07/16
750 vacation rentals in the Estes Valley Planning Area
Estes Valley vacation rental data - per Town license/permit applications as of 11/01/16
498 licensed/permitted vacation rentals
265 in Estes Park
233 in Larimer County
Note: 498/750 = 66% of vacation rentals are licensed
Of the licensed/permitted vacations rentals
353 are 3 bedrooms or less
112 are 4 bedrooms or more (potential 9+ occupancy)
33 have an unknown number of bedrooms
78% of the Estes Valley VRs have non-Estes Valley owners
46% of the Estes Valley VRs have out of state owners
140 – 150 of the 492 vacation rentals “Business Names” include the terms LLC, LP, Inc, Enterprise, Ltd,
Partnership, Holding, etc.
- 38 owners own multiple vacations for a total of 98 properties
Estes Park Area Housing Needs Study, Rees Consulting Inc, January 22, 2016
“Loss of Units – At the same time rental demand was increasing from the factors mentioned above, the
size of the rental inventory declined. Long-term rentals occupied by the workforce have been sold to
new owners as the market recovered or converted into short-term vacation home rentals, both of which
displaced renters and permanently reduced the supply of rental housing.”, Pg. 67
“Rental homes being sold, flood damage and rentals being converted to short-term rentals have
affected the most renters – about 200 each.”, Pg. 83
Estes Valley Vacation Rental Data v2.0
VR Data Overview package 110516 frm 110116
1 0 0
9
0 0 1 2 2 3 3
14 10 8
68
13 16
41 41
95
171
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
No. of Vacation RentalsHomes converted to Vacation Rentals each year
Town Board approves "Use by Right"
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
No. of Vacation RentalsLicensed VR growth (from 2016 license/permit info)
Town Board approves "Use by Right"
Estes Valley Vacation Rental Data v2.0
VR Data Overview package 110516 frm 110116
37
124
192
79
27
2 1 2 1
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9No. of VRsNo. of Bedrooms
Size of Vacation Rentals (no. of bedrooms)
VRs
36
41
25
6
114 115
14
7 6
31
11
92
7 10
3 2
29
21
5 3 1
7 4
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
A A-1 CD CO E E-1 R R-1 R-2 RE RE-1 RMNo. of VRsZoning District
Vacation Rentals per Zoning District
VRs
4+ Bdrms33 VRs have an unknow number of
Estes Valley Vacation Rental Data v2.0
VR Data Overview package 110516 frm 110116
Total licensed VRs in all zones 498 % of 498
VRs in A and C zones 108 22%
VRs in residential zones 390 78%
VRs in residential RM zones 92 18%
VRs in residential w/o RM zones 298 60%
Total licensed VRs in all zones 498 % of 498
Total licensed 4+ bdrm VRs 112 22%
4+ bdrm VRs in A and C zones 22 4%
4+ bdrm VRs in residential zones 90 18%
4+ bdrm VRs in RM zones 20 4%
4+ bdrm VRs in res w/o RM 70 14%
1 2 3
13
160
109
1
7 10
1
12
1
23
1 1
7 6 9
1 2 1
44
2 2 4 9
2 1
55
1 1 1 5
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
ALARAZCACOEstes ParkCTFLIAIDILINKSKYMDMIMNMOMSNCNDNENVNYOHOKORTNTXVAWAWVWYNo. of VRsOwner's state of residence
Estes Valley VR ownership
[P
A
ESTES —J.PARri
9+ vacation rentals
1 message
ECN[E0
OCT 3 1 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org >
Theresa Oja <theresaoja@gmail.com > Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 9:55 PM
To: Steve Johnson <johnsosw@co.larimerco.us>, donnelt@co.larimer co.us, Karen & Scott Thompson
<kthompson@estes.org>
Dear Planning and County Commissioners,
I just wanted to once again request that 9 and above vacation rentals be very carefully structured and not grandfathered for
their current illegal use. We have four in our small area. All are owned by out of town owners.
We had wedding activities at two properties by us a few of weekends ago. One was clearly marked with a "wedding" sign.
Linda Hardin is pursuing this but her hands are tied by many factors. I recently learned that there are no limits on the
number of "bedrooms" counted as long as it is rented to one party. For instance this wedding property has one very large
house as well as other cabins on it.
One of the others has hosted weddings while coaching the renters to say they are only having a dinner party. This was
clearly also a wedding by the balloons and signage put up by the renters but it just didn't have the word wedding on
it. The truck that was used to deliver and pick up supplies for this "dinner party" was the size of a large moving truck.
Frankly, I've never had a dinner party that required a delivery by a truck of this size. I don't know how as a neighbor
(without trespassing) I could determine what is in the truck, what they are setting up, how many guests, etc.
When I called the property managers to ask what was going on, their solution was to give the renters my cellphone
number. I also don't think I should be fielding phone calls from the renters. I'm not getting paid to manage the property
and I actually feel this is an intimidation tactic to limit complaints. When I questioned the renter he stated that the
property manager knew in advance what was planned.
When we have rented a vacation rental in other locations, part of the contract was that you could not have more people on
site then the house was being rented to accommodate. Specifically, that no parties are allowed. I don't see why this
couldn't be part of our "code". This vague "you can have a guests" nonsense is a powder keg. A wedding? A frat party?
What is the limit on the number of guests and additional traffic?
Do you want to live next door to one of these small hotels with no onsite property management?
These are not neighbors. They are out of town owners of an accommodations business in a residential area. I am baffled
that their "rights" to run these businesses can come at the expense of those of us that live and work here in the valley.
Your home is usually your largest investment. Residential zoning should protect your right to have a home with out being
surrounded by small hotels/event centers.
Please limit the number of guests to the number on the lease. Please put a limit on the number of total guests allowed to
12 and under. If a family needs a larger venue than that, then they may have to rent two homes. Or they may need to
rent somewhere that is licensed with the correct zoning to have their "event".
I'm asking you what frustrated neighbors should do? Maybe the line should be the town boundary. Outside the town limits
we are not allowed to vote for town board members if they ignore the residents concerns. If we reside outside of the town
limits and the town has yet to find a way to enforce any rules then we should revert to county rule.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
Theresa Oja
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org>
Study Session comment
2 messages
Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com >
To: planning@estes.org
Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:35 AM
A
ESTES _.PARK
1 understand the Study Session packages have already been delivered, but, I would appreciate the forwarding of the
following comment to the Planning Commissioners.
Thank you,
- Rebecca Urquhart
PLEASE PROHIBIT STR OCCUPANCY LIMITS TO BE EXCEDED BY "TEMPORARY" VISITS.
I have long maintained that the Town Attorney's determination that the right to have parties and temporary guests is an
exception to the current 8 person limit for short term rentals (STRs). His reasoning is that part of the "residential rights"
of an owner is to have guests for dinners, etc. While that may be true, residential rights are curtailed by lots of
regulations. For example, you cannot have multi-family residents in a single family neighborhood, you cannot build 4
story structures, etc. I maintain that if the owner wants to turn their residence in to a commercial business (which is
what these are), they relinquish some rights in order to preserve the residential character of single family zones.
Short term rental may be described as a "residential right" by the courts, but that does not mean it cannot be limited or
regulated. I am calling on the Town and County, again, to expressly prohibit the "temporary" stay exception that the Town
Attorney has issued. If not, you cannot distinguish the use of the short term rental for "dinner parties", events (like family
reunions and weddings), or overnight guests, resulting in no limits at all to occupancy. Hotels do not allow parties and
events in rooms, and short term rentals should not allow it either, particularly since there is no on site management, as
in formal lodging. Additionally, there are reports that property managers are instructing renters who are hosting reunions
and weddings in the rental houses to simply claim it is a "dinner party."
If you do not limit occupancy, the destruction of residential living in the Valley will continue unabated.
The Town Attorney claims that to prohibit temporary occupancy leaves the STR owners vulnerable to being cited for just
a short visit, say, by a pizza delivery vehicle, or even the property manager. That concern is unfounded. While an
outraged neighbor may be tempted to file a complaint, if there is no evidence that the extra occupant was more than
brief, i.e. filing a complaint unsupported by time and date stamped photos (cell phones have this capability), then we all
know the Town and County staff will not find a violation. In almost 10 years of the code, the Town Staff has not found
ANY violation, to the best of my knowledge, for even the most obvious and well-documented complaints. Owners could
always submit pizza delivery receipts, for example, or sworn statements to counter any exaggerated complaint.
Just a bit of brief research reveals VRBO ads or short term rental contracts all over the country that prohibit temporary
guests during short term rentals. It can be assumed those have withstood legal challenges. Safety regulations, such as
the fire codes, limit occupancy of buildings (no exception for a temporary occupancy). There is no reason, other than the
fact that it is well known that our Town Attorney is against any governmental restrictions, including zoning, that the
Estes Valley codes should not include an express limit both temporary and permanent occupancy limits.
(As an aside, I am firmly opposed to unlimited 2 occupants for each bedroom plus 2 allowances because volumes of
research shows that small houses will be expanded or torn down and replaced with large houses by the lodging industry,
and every residential area will just become a sea of mini-hotels. Right now, there is no incentive to the hotel industry in
Town to upgrade or expand — instead, they are gobbling up residences and putting them in to their rental portfolios
because it is more economical. The owners and managers on the Task Force outnumbered the neighborhood reps 2 to 1,
bullied them until half quit, and the current "recommendation" of allowing the illegal current ones and future to be
permitted to have 9 and above on special review was basically coerced. Anyone who has followed Town process knows
that "special review" is a sham, and the Staff and Trustees just rubberstamp any owner request. At most, currently
licensed larger homes could be allowed to exceed 8 occupants, with strict special reviews, but NO MORE SHOULD BE
PERMITTED. Otherwise, every residential area will become predominantly lodging in a fairly short time).
Re42-ex-ca. L. UrgAkkart-
Attorney at Law
970-586-7586
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:55 AM
To: Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>
Cc: Planning commdev <planning@estes.org>
Rebecca,
Thank you for your comment. I will email it to the Planning Commissioners and appropriate staff. Please let me know if
you have any questions.
Karen Thompson
Executive Assistant
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
Phone: 970-577-3721
Fax: 970-586-0249
kthompson@estes.org
[Quoted text hidden]
ECIENE
OCT 3 1 2016
fi:MtlitittilfiEVELOPMENT
A
EP ESTES . PARK
Georgia Bihr's letter re: Vacati
2 messages
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org >
Laird Miers <Imiers@comcast.net > Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:56 AM
To: kthompson@estes.org
October 29, 2016
Estes Valley Planning Commission
Estes Park CO 80517
To the Planning Commissioners of the Estes Valley:
I have lived at 509 Big Horn Drive in Estes Park for eighteen years. My home is located on a steep gravel private road
that already serves five other residences for a total of six homes. Four of these homes are located beyond/above mine.
This road lies only 26 feet from my small deck and less than forty feet from my front door. I believe that private roads
like ours are supposed to serve a maximum of four homes. With six homes, we already have the potential for 50% more
traffic than a 4 home private drive.
I have learned that Ranier Schelp, who lives directly above me, is currently advertising his personal home as a vacation
rental. This 4900 sq ft 5 bedroom house could sleep 10 or more individuals. Renting out this home will exponentially
increase the amount of traffic on our already heavily overused road.
Turning private homes into vacation rentals is impacting the life quality of the residents across our valley. This vacation
rental will have direct negative impact on my life, my property value and also on the lives and property values of my
neighbors.
I am requesting that the Commission take action to ban vacation rentals in residential areas on private roads that serve
four or more homes.
Thank you.
Georgia Bihr
Sent from my iPad
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:01 AM
To: Laird Miers <Imiers@comcast.net >
Georgia,
Thank you for your comment. I will email it to the Planning Commissioners and appropriate staff members. Please let
me know if you have any questions.
Karen Thompson
Executive Assistant
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
Phone: 970-577-3721
Fax: 970-586-0249
kthompson@estes.org
[Quoted text hidden]
[COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT October 31, 2016
To the Planning Commission:
Preamble
The cap issue for short term rentals has been divisive. Through individual discussions over the past two
weeks, a possible policy framework emerged last Friday that might avoid the recent impasse of cap-or-
no-cap between Town Trustees and County Commissioners.
That framework is a cap PLUS exception approach. The exception part could be the system Denver
adopted this summer, with a few tweaks. Though open-ended, it can manage future growth in short
term rentals in residential zones in a controlled manner, rather than leaving it uncontrolled, unfairly
constrained, or unwieldy by requiring elected officials to agree to adjust any cap upwards over time.
We will attempt to analyze available housing data on effects of such an approach and report results to
you in the days ahead.
This submission is in three parts:
• This one page preamble
• The Denver system (printed FAQs from the webpage)
• Our thoughts on implementation
Respectfully submitted,
Bill & Rebecca Urquhart
1955 Homestead Lane
Estes Park, CO
Ii.) DENVER
pr THE MILE HIGH CITY
Denver Short-Term Rentals FAQ
Who can apply for a Short-Term Rental (STR) license and when?
As of July 1, 2016, property owners and long-term renters are allowed to apply for an STR
license for their primary residence. Renters must certify that they have the permission of their
landlord to conduct short-term rentals.
How does a person apply for an STR license?
As of July 1, 2016, applications for STR licenses will be submitted at www.Denvergov.org/STR .
Applicants will be required to certify that they meet the requirements for STRs.
What is required to obtain a STR license?
STR operators must certify they meet the following requirements in order to obtain an STR
license from Denver Excise & Licenses:
• You must be a legal resident of the United States.
• The property must be your primary residence.
• If you do not own the property, you must obtain written documentation from the
landlord or property owner allowing you to operate an STR.
• You must possess all applicable Business Taxes licenses, including the Lodger's Tax.
o Tax License Application
• If your property is part of a homeowners association, please verify that STRs are allowed
in your HOA.
• Check with your insurance carrier to ensure that your STR is covered.
What is the fee for obtaining an STR license? Does a license need to be renewed?
An application fee of $25 will be assessed for individual STR license applications. STR licenses are
offered annually, and need to be renewed every 12 months.
When will STR licenses be required?
STR operators must be licensed by Dec. 31, 2016.
Where are STRs allowed?
STRs are allowed as an accessory use wherever residential uses are allowed. That includes
residential as well as mixed-use commercial districts. Private homeowners associations (HOAs)
have authority to prohibit STRs through their private covenants and rules.
Department of Excise & Licenses
201 W. Colfax Ave. Dept 206 I Denver, CO 80202
www.denvergov.org/businesslicensing
p. 720.865.2740 I f. 720.865.2882
311 I POCKETGOV.COM I DENVERGOV.ORG I DENVER 8 TV
rdha1 DENVER
Iv THE MILE HIGH CITY
How does the city verify that a unit is someone's primary residence?
Excise & Licenses inspectors have authority to request documentation of primary residency
verification from STR licensees at any time. Inspectors rely on various forms that demonstrate
the STR operator's unit is their primary residence. These documents can include, but are not
limited to:
• Driver's license
• Voter's registration
• State 1D card
• Tax documents
• Utility bills
• Any other document proving the STR unit is a primary residence
Do STR licensees need to pay taxes?
Yes. STR licensees will be required to pay 10.75% Lodger's Tax, Occupational Privilege Tax, and
any other applicable taxes or fees associated with their STR. The Tax License Application is
available on the city's Business Taxes webpage.
Do STR units require in-person inspections?
No. However, licensees must certify under penalty of perjury their STR has a fire extinguisher,
carbon monoxide detector, smoke alarm, and liability insurance to cover bodily and property
damage.
Why is a license number required to be placed in advertisements?
License numbers will be required in advertisements so Excise & Licenses can track and monitor
various STR platforms for both licensed and unlicensed STRs being advertised. No personal
licensee information will be included in the license number.
How will STRs be enforced or regulated? What are the fines for violations?
The city tracks and monitors complaints about licensed and unlicensed STR units. Excise &
Licenses responds to complaint-based STR inquiries, in addition to conducting proactive
enforcement measures through department inspectors. The Director of Excise & Licenses has
summary authority to levy penalties, fines, suspensions, or show-cause hearings that could lead
to STR license revocation at any time for violating any provision of the STR regulations, or for
violating any local or state law. Fines for violating any STR rules and regulations can be up to
$999 per incident.
Does a host have to be present during STR?
No. Property owners or long-term renters may conduct STRs while they are on vacation and/or
the property is vacant. However, hosts are required to leave a welcome packet for guests that
includes appropriate contact information and instructions on city services.
Department of Excise & Licenses
201 W. Colfax Ave. Dept. 206 I Denver, CO 80202
www.denvergov.org/businesslicensing
p. 720.865.2740 I f. 720.865.2882
311 I POCKETGOV.COM I DENVERGOV.ORG I DENVER 8 TV
pw DENVER
THE MILE HIGH CITY
How many guests are allowed to stay in an STR?
STR hosts have the ability to set their own guest maximums. However, per the Denver Zoning
Code (DZC), STRs are accessory to primary residential use, meaning the overall character of the
property should remain residential. The DZC also explicitly states that STRs do not include rental
of a dwelling unit for commercial events, such as parties or weddings. Additionally, only one
rental contract may be allowed at a time in any STR. Multiple rental contracts to separate
parties in an STR are prohibited.
Can accessory dwelling units (ADUs) be used for STRs?
ADUs may be used as STRs by a property owner or long-term renter who is living in the primary
structure on the property. However, only one STR license will be allowed per property, so a
long-term renter of an ADU may only apply for an STR license if the owner/renter of the primary
structure does not also have one.
Can duplexes be used for STRs?
Each unit in a duplex is a separate primary dwelling unit, so the primary resident of each unit
may obtain a license to conduct an STR. However, a person who resides in one duplex unit may
not obtain a license to conduct an STR in the adjacent unit, because that unit is not their primary
residence.
Why does the city license STRs?
Denver has legalized and licensed STRs in the city in order to regulate and tax this home-sharing
practice, as well as:
• Recognize the fact that STRs are widely operating today as a popular home-sharing
practice for Denver residents.
• Provide a regulatory environment that allows the popular practice to continue while
focusing responsibility and accountability among operators and limiting the impact on
neighborhoods.
How can someone learn more about STRs in Denver?
Visit www.Denvergov.org/STR where you can review licensing requirements, apply for a license
as of July 1, 2016, report issues related to STRs and send comments or questions to city staff.
- DenverGov.org/STR -
Department of Excise & Licenses
201 W. Colfax Ave. Dept 206 I Denver, CO 80202
www.denvergov.org/businesslicensing
p. 720.865.2740 I 1. 720.865.2882
311 I POCKETGOV.COM I DENVERGOV.ORG I DENVER 8 TV
Proposal: New code approach to restrain future investors buying up
properties in Estes Valley residential zones for short term rental
purposes (this has been occurring).
1. Adopt a Denver-type ordinance: no short term rental in
residential zones unless it has been your primary residence
• Avoids the "property rights" objection by residents by
preserving those rights.
• Prevents increases in investor/lodging industry operations in
residential zones.
• No subsequent owner can acquire the right from a primary
resident, either, unless the subsequent owner becomes a
resident.
• Those who are licensed now will have the right to rent, so no
"property right" will be taken away.
• Residential requirement in residential zones will help
preserve workforce housing.
• Caveat: the problem with the primary residence rule is the
Family Trust or family LLC issue.
2. Grandfather any nonresident owner who has a license as of
date)
• Don't cap or restrict short-term VRs in the Accommodations
& mixed use zones, though. That is where these belong, and
yes, we do have a need for VRs.
3. No additional 9 and above VRs (other than grandfathered as of
Task Force date) in any zone but Accommodations and mixed
use.
• The Task Force voted to approve 9 and above in all areas
with a special review. Special review in Estes Park is form
without substance.
• There are currently 70, or about 10% of all VRs today — that
is enough. If allowed in all zones, residents can add on to
their houses, turn them into mini-hotels, and move to
Florida or Arizona on the income. Limit additional 9 and
above houses to Accommodations/mixed use zones.
4. Registration process will be the only practical enforcement. No
license without proof of primary residence status at one time,
AND letter from HOA (if in an HOA) confirming allowance of
short term rental). Require attestation that applicant has
ownership interest in no more than 2 STRs (e.g., LLCs, family
trust)
5. Any advertisement for short term rental (on line, print, etc.) OR
a listing agreement with a property manager or realtor for
inclusion in short term offerings establishes a presumption that
it is operating as a short term rental requiring a license
6. Violations of operating without a license punishable by hefty
fines, and nonrenewal or suspension after a certain # of
violations.
Association for Responsible Development
P.O. Box 3882, Estes Park, CO 80517
Web; ardestes.org
Vacation Rental Task Force Recommendations
The increasing number of vacation rental units in Town and their resultant negative
effects reported by citizens in residential neighborhoods, prompted Town Trustees and County
Commissioners to request formation of a task force to make recommendations for vacation rental
occupancies of more than eight people. The task force was to assume that both boards wanted to
allow occupancy greater than the 8 allowed today and to come up with a list of recommended
Estes Valley Development Code amendments to deal with the increased occupancy. The task
force was not to consider enforcement since that was a policy issue to be decided by the boards.
This appeared to be a good approach, as Town government was doing little to address
problems resulting from the growing number of seasonal rentals in Estes Park. Reported
problems included but were not limited to: unreasonable noise from renters occurring after hours,
failure of some rental owners to limit the number of total visitors to the current code limit of two
people per bedroom plus two additional people (8 total people), problems related to street
parking from an excessive number of renter vehicles, and a general lack of accountability and
identification of rental home owners and/or property managers to contact when such problems
occurred. The Vacation Rental Task Force was to be composed of equal numbers of
representatives from the community that were concerned about these issues, as well as rental
owners/property managers who have a financial interest in the future growth of vacation rentals.
The Larimer County Community Development Director was selected to run the Task Force with
the intent of coming to a set of agreed upon recommendations for vacation rentals of occupancy
greater than 8 to present to Town government and the County Commissioners. Task Force
meetings began in April and continued through early August of this year.
As the meetings progressed over the summer, it was clear that the issues discussed and
opinions offered were highly contentious. Task Force membership was not entirely balanced,
with seven members chosen from the community versus eight members who owned vacation
rentals or managed such properties. Several community representatives resigned from the Task
Force prior to completion of its work. ARD was allowed one representative on the Task Force.
Despite many differences of opinion, the Task Force did agree on a number of recommendations
including maintaining the current method for establishing the occupancy limit for a short-term
rental property as 2 occupants per bedroom + 2 additional occupants. All individuals, regardless
of age will count toward the occupancy limit. It was further recommended that all normal land
use, building, health, and fire inspections are to be conducted by local government, that parking
restrictions be made consistent with the code requirements for similar residential properties, and
that a minimum lot size of 1 acre and minimum setbacks of 25 feet be required for vacation
rentals with occupancy greater than 8. It was also recommended that each vacation rental be
required to have posted for the renters' notification a list of local rules, regulations, and
emergency information. A local contact, available 24/7 by phone and able to respond to
complaints within 30 minutes must be identified and on record.
An obvious obstacle faced by the Task Force was the lack of information regarding the
number of homes that are rented short-term. An independent consultant reported that there are
currently some 750 homes that are used for vacation rentals in the Estes Valley Planning Region,
of which only an approximate 500 are licensed. A very positive recommendation from the Task
Force is to have the Town subscribe to an on-line service called Host Compliance (iCompass), an
industry leader in short-term rental monitoring and compliance solutions for local governments.
In addition this service takes phone complaints 24/7, contacts listed owners/managers, collects
data on rental unit numbers, and sends letters to owners concerning "non-compliance." ARD
very much supports this recommendation in order to provide real data in terms monitoring the
number of such rentals in Town and providing a real-time response system for non-compliance.
The primary issue that the Task Force was asked to consider involved the number of
vacation rental homes that have been violating the current code of a maximum of 8 renters per
home. Many complaints have been made about large parties of people renting vacation homes
particularly in residential neighborhoods with smaller lot sizes and setbacks. Such renting only
exacerbates noise and street parking problems encountered by Estes Park residents. Some rental
owners and realtors strongly endorsed a change to the code allowing a larger number of
occupants (nine and above) be incorporated into the development code. This contingent also
recommended that a "grandfather clause" be added to the existing code allowing those rental
homes who have not been following the "eight rule" to continue to do so under any code
changes. The Task Force recommended that as of July 1, 2016, only the 97 currently licensed
vacation rentals (32 rentals within Town limits, and 65 rentals within the unincorporated area of
the Estes Valley Planning Area) of 4 bedrooms or more, be considered for "grandfathering" and
that grandfathering would be considered for lot sizes of less than one acre, or setbacks less than
25 feet. The Task Force agreed that an occupancy greater that 8 should not be a "use-by-right"
and that all new short-term rental applications for occupancy greater than 8 must go through a
Special Review process which could result in approval by the Town Board or the Board of
County Commissioners.
Also, a recommendation to post on site the specific allowable number of people in each
rental home was agreed upon. This could be useful since many renters who are causing issues
during their stay claim that they were not aware of limits on the number of people allowed in the
home. ARD believes that most of these recommendations are drastically needed in order to
provide accountability for the vacation rental business going forward. It goes without saying that
should these needed recommendations be adopted by the Town and County they will only be
useful if they are enforced. It has been the experience of many residents of Estes Park that
enforcement within the Town limits has been poor. Given the trend of an exponential increase in
vacation rentals in our neighborhoods, it is essential that our Town government take a
responsible stance on these recommendations and make an honest effort to enforce them. While
it is financially lucrative for home owners and investors to rent homes and condos on a short
term basis during the high months of tourism, the continuing uncontrolled use of this business
will only denigrate the quality of life in our neighborhoods, the small town atmosphere of Estes
Park, and will continue to transform any available workforce housing into investment properties.
All people who have purchased homes to live here have a vested interest in maintaining the
quality of their neighborhoods. This includes the reasonable expectation of having the residential
experience that they sought when they purchased their homes. The County Commissioners favor
placing a total limit cap on the number of short-term rentals in the Valley. ARD thanks our
county commissioners, Tom Donnelly, Steve Johnson, and Lew Gaiter for their interest and
actions in preserving the quality of life for the residents of Estes Park and the Estes Valley.
Those who are affected by vacation rentals in their neighborhoods are encouraged to contact our
Town government and make your concerns known. Also, the Estes Valley Planning
Commission will hold a special study session Nov. 1 at 12 p.m. to discuss vacation rental
regulations, followed by a public hearing to consider draft vacation rental code amendments at
its regular meeting at Town Hall at 1:30 p.m on November 15 th.
Association for Responsible Development
EP
I
ESTES _...,PA?K
Please forward to all Planning Commissioners
2 messages
Millicent Cozzie <mhcozzie@earthlink.net >
To: planning@estes.org, "Millicent H. Cozzie" <mhcozzie@earthlink.net>
hompson <kthompson@estes.org >
Oct 26, 2016 at 5:48 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I was a member of the VHR task force. Unfortunately, a family medical emergency prevented my attendance at our last
meeting. I had intended at that meeting to have the enclosed DRAFT brochure included in our final report. Per my
backup plan, I attach a copy for your perusal now. Please scroll down for both pages. I also attach a copy of the South
Lake Tahoe brochure after which my brochure was modeled. Please scroll down for both pages there also. Each
brochure can be double sided copied onto one sheet of paper and then folded into a compact, easy-to-read trifold.
Millicent Cozzie
2 attachments
1,1 VHR TRIFOLD.pdf
2589K
South Lake Tahoe Trifold.pdf
2195K
Karen Thompson <kthompson@estes.org> Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:46 AM
To: Betty Hull <jbhull@aol.com>, Douglas Klink <dougklink@gmail.com>, Russ Schneider
<russestesplanningcommission@gmail.com >, Steve Murphree <steve@estesvalley.net >, Nancy Hills
<nancyahills@gmail.com>, Sharry White <bsharrywhite@gmail.com >, Michael Moon <mgmoon@aol.com>, Randy Hunt
<rhunt@estes.org>, Audem Gonzales <agonzales@estes.org>, Alison Chilcott <achilcott@estes.org>
Good Morning,
Millicent Cozzie asked that I forward her email to you. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
Karen Thompson
Executive Assistant
Community Development Department
Town of Estes Park
Phone: 970-577-3721
Fax: 970-586-0249
kthompson@estes.org
[Quoted text hidden]
2 attachments
VHR TRIFOLD.pdf
2589K
South Lake Tahoe Trifold.pdf
—1 2195K
AMONG COLORADO'S MANY GEMS
RACE' is a set of behavioral
guidelines to empower those who visit as
Vacation Home Renters and those who live here
to enjoy the majesty and splendor of our Rocky
Mountains. Please be respectful of the
neighborhood in which you are privileged to
spend a vacation and i'flAVE No TRACE, For
those who do not adhere to these guidelines,
we have developed a schedule of fines ranging
from $ to $ .
-101111111PW°
We welcome you to our magnificent views
and beloved wildlife. Please have all
members of your party read this brochure
carefully so your visit will be thoroughly
enjoyable. A new Vacation Home Rental
(VHR) Hotline has been established for
neighbors to report ordinance infractions.
We strictly enforce our noise, parking,
occupancy, and general VHR ordinances.
Violators will be cited and fined.
ESTES PARK AND ESTES VALLEY
LEAVE NO TRACE
BROCHURE FOR ESTES VHR
(VACATION HOME RENTERS)
DRAFT
VACATION HOME RENTAL
ENFORCEMENT HOTLINE
1.800.000.000
PARKING AND MCl/PAN-CV City and State
codes ensure access for emergency vehicles and
help determine the maximum allowable
number of vehicles posted at each VHR.
Similarly, occupancy limits posted at each VHR
are established by our VHR Ordinance.
Weddings and parties are not allowed in our
VHRs. We strictly enforce our parking and
occupancy limits.
Be respectful of your neighbor's
property lines. Trespassing is a serious privacy
and liability concern of VHR neighbors.
No excessive noise is permitted at any
time. Residents and visitors choose Estes Park
for its abundant contemplative opportunities.
Excessive noise in our neighborhoods causes
extreme stress and interferes with the ability of
your neighbors to relax and enjoy their own
homes. Be respectful of our noise ordinance.
14 r77 Tr M e- Operation in pools,
spas, and hot tubs of jets, blowers and other
mechanical elements that produce noise are
prohibited between the hours of 10 PM and 7
AM. Again, please respect our noise ordinance.
ESTES: BASE CAMP FOR ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK
DRAFT
I,Ff a rtrAr,F "1,011-*Tr?AcTf You are visiting a mountain community. Always remember the risks of
wildfire and wildlife. Due to our high winds and frequent droughts, a flick of a cigarette butt or
unattended campfire/barbecue grill can quickly cause a wildfire. Similarly, a hungry bear can severely
damage your car if food is left inside. Our new wildlife ordinance requires disposal of ALL garbage in
bear proof containers.
lease read this brochure carefully as we
want you to enjoy your stay in
South Lake Tahoe,
America's All Year Playground.
Residential
Quiet Zone
is a set of beliefs promoting
respect for South Lake Tahoe
neighborhoods;
dispose of waste properly,
leave what you find,
respect wildlife,
and be considerate of others.
The City of South Lake Tahoe strictly
enforces its Noise and Vacation Home
Rental Ordinances and violators will be
cited and fined.
Thank you! City of South Lake Tahoe
4metied s fey Picypouna
Leapt Na I are
t
r
..
4_ lital
"Leave No Impact"
Brochure
for
Vacation
Home
Renters
spose of waste properly,
ave what you find, respect wildlife,
d be considerate of others.
Se 4dvised .....City of South Lake Tahoe residents can call the
vacation rental enforcement hotline to report complaints related to VHR's.
Trash day is a
bear's buffet.
4
Sews will sal ywuli
Li.k 0 ds,r11 eisiat-Moat bins
Take care.
atm Na Iffract.••.. is a set of beliefs promoting respect for South Lake Tahoe neighborhoods;
YIL
Weicome
We welcome you to South Lake
Tahoe and hope you enjoy our
beautiful community as much as
we do. During your visit, please
remember that the Vacation
Home Rental (VHR) you are
staying in is located within a
residential neighborhood. The
following "Leave No Impact"
policies are an essential part of
our VHR program.
Noise
No excessive or unreasonable
noise is permitted at any time.
Plash,
We would also like to remind you
that we live in the forest. In the
forest we have bears that are
hungry and will go through your
trash if you leave garbage bags
outside of your VHR. Also, if you
leave food inside of your
vehicles, a bear may try to get to
your food for a snack.
Occupancy
Visitors must adhere to the
maximum number of occupants
in the VHR. Weddings and
parties are not allowed in
VHR's.
Poals/SpasMot Tugs
Use of pools, spas and hot tubs
with the use of jets, blowers and
other mechanical elements that
produce noise are prohibited
between the hours of 10pm and
7am.
'Pa
Parking at VHRs must be in
compliance with all City and
State parking regulations. The
number of parking spaces at
each VHR is posted on signage
outside of the VHR.
&finCelftent
If the City of South Lake Tahoe
VHR Enforcement Officer issues
a citation for noise, parking,
occupancy or trash complaints,
fines range from $250-$2,000.
17 ANGE
INLEALTY, LTD At. EST. 1969
The Oldest Real Estate Company In Estes Park
October 28, 2016
Estes Valley Planning Commission
Estes Park, CO.
Commissioners:
My husband and I have lived off of North Big Horn Drive for many years. Access for our home,
together with five others, is served by a private road. (We always thought that only four homes
would be allowed when served by a private road, but over the last few years building permits
have been issued which brought the number to six.)
Now the owner (Ray Schelp) of one of these homes has turned it into a vacation rental and is
already taking reservations for the summer. We are dreading the summer vacation rental traffic
on our steep, private road. Why would vacation rentals be allowed on private roads like ours?
Vacation rentals are destroying the right of homeowners to the peaceful enjoyment of their
property, and that will certainly be true in our area.
Thank you for your serious consideration of not allowing vacation rentals in residential areas
that are served by a private road.
Than you,
nn Racine
300 East Elkhorn Avenue P.O. Box 1604 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 (970) 586-2345 Fax (970) 586-5293
10/4/2016 Town of Estes Park Mail Fwd: Estes Valley Vacation Homes
https://m ail.google.com /mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5bb48ca637&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1578de95d2f264f6&siml=1578de95d2f264f6 1/3
Ali son Chilcott <achilcott@estes.org>
Fwd: Estes Valley Vacation Homes
1 mes s age
Terry Gilbert <gilberrt@c o.larimer.co.us>Mon, Oc t 3, 2016 at 10:17 PM
To: Alis on Chilc ott <ac hilc ott @es t es.org>
I don't hav e v ery many emails. Here is the firs t one I found.
COL. Robert "Terry" Gilbert (ret.) AICP
Community Development Director
Larimer County
Cell: (970) 3051544
rtgilbert@larimer.org
www.larimer.org
Forwarded mess age
From: Terry Gilbert <gilberrt@c o.larimer.c o.us >
Dat e: Tue, J ul 5, 2016 at 10:12 AM
Subject : Re: Es tes Valley Vac ation Homes
To: Suzanne K Miller <asmillerco@gmail.com>
The Count y is not authoriz ed, by St ate Statutes , to is s ue bus ines s licens es , s o t here is no annual fee that c an be
c ollect by the Town of Es tes , who enf orc es and is s ues t he permit s in the uninc orporated area of the Es tes Valley
Planning Area.
Enf orc ement, of the Estes Valley Development Code, is the res ponsibility of the Town of Estes Park . The Es tes Valley
Planning Area included both the Town of Estes Park and a port ion of unincorporated County area. Currently, t here is
now one fulltime Codes Officer, charged with the enf orc ement of t he entire Es tes Valley Planning Area.
The Tas k Force will be making a rec ommendat ion on how t he 9/abov e vacat ion rentals s hould be approv ed, both in t own
and outside of t he town. Als o, the Tas k Forc e is not mak ing a recommendation as to whether 9/abov e v ac ation rentals
s hould or shouldn't be allowed. The Trus t ees and t he Board of County Commis s ioners will be dealing with whet her to
allow 9/above v acation rentals .
Additionally, although the Tas k Force is not charged with mak ing rec ommendat ions on the enf orc ement . However, if
there is s till t ime av ailable within our pres ent s chedule, we will dis c us s ways to enforce both the 8/under and 9/abov e (if
the two Boards v ote to allow 9/abov e) v acation rentals.
Thank y ou for ex pres s ing your conc erns . I hope I have been able to properly ans wer y our questions .
Terry
COL. Robert "Terry" Gilbert (ret.) AICP
Community Development Director
Larimer County
Cell: (970) 3051544
rtgilbert@larimer.org
www.larimer.org
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Suzanne K Miller <asmillerco@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear COL Gilbert,
Thank you for getting me your correct email address as the original listing from the
Town left out the second initial ’t’ in your address but I’ve noted it’s been corrected in
all of the minutes.
10/4/2016 Town of Estes Park Mail Fwd: Estes Valley Vacation Homes
https://m ail.google.com /mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5bb48ca637&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1578de95d2f264f6&siml=1578de95d2f264f6 2/3
We have been following the meeting minutes and thank you too for getting those
published within a timely manner. I do worry at times that the Task Force has only
three representatives that are looking out for Owner/occupied member living
in unincorporated area of the Planning Area but I hope they are keeping our year
round residents of the Estes Valley within Larimer County in their thoughts and
recommendations. Not all of us feel we’re here as a tourist attraction for our Local
Marketing District!! And many of us in the County have organized PID’s to maintain
our roads that do not meet County standards….nor could we afford to do that.
However, each of us pay a tax to maintain our roads and thus watch carefully the ‘use’
which was intended for our permanent residents.
We are following closely the various discussion items such as lot size, occupancy,
parking etc. but cannot as yet determine the ‘enforcement’ issues once the
regulations that are already in place, and those that may become code, are being
enforced. Our questions are as follows:
Why is there no cost for the operating permits required?
Does the County require a Business License for outside the Town limits as the Town
does for within the Town limits? And are the costs equivalent from Town to County?
Why doesn’t the ‘Marketing District’ collect a sales tax(pillow tax) for rentals outside
the Town limits, but within the County and the Estes Valley that they publicize.
Which ‘agency’ or agents are charged with monitoring and enforcing the
code/regulations for Vacation Home rentals?
Is the cost to a homeowner that wishes to rent for 30 days or less cheaper in the
County than within the Town limits?
Our key point here is that it’s probably realistic to say that we will continue to have
Vacation Rentals of 8 and maybe even 9 and above in the future, but the Town and
the County need to agree, as you have stated, on the parameters/guidelines/codes
etc. As to the enforcement issue, which is the key to the probable and inevitable in
our opinion, there needs to be funding established to maintain an officer or person(s)
who will monitor and enforce the codes you have taken such care of establishing. We
realize taxing is not a popular issue BUT if you’re in a money making endeavor, you
should pay for the services necessary to keep you and the surrounding areas within
code. It’s what’s best for our entire community and valley. Our property values are at
stake as well too!! And as we have shared in the past….we don’t have a working
Homeowner ’s Association to safeguard our property interests and the North End
Property Owners Association does not want to take this on apparently.
Thank you again for your listening ear. We just hope the voices of those of us year
round residents in the County are being considered as well as those who stand to
gain monetarily from our glorious setting.
Sincerely,
Suzanne and Alan Miller
2700 Eagle Rock Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
10/4/2016 Town of Estes Park Mail Fwd: Estes Valley Vacation Homes
https://m ail.google.com /mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5bb48ca637&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1578de95d2f264f6&siml=1578de95d2f264f6 3/3
8/30/2016 Town of Estes Park Mail - Vacation rentals (VRBO's)
ESTES
A
EP A :1
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Vacation rentals (VRBO's)
1 message
Steve Thorn <sthom731@gmail.com> Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 3:02 PM
To: townclerk@estes.org
Please distribute to all members of the committee, County Commissioners, and Town Trustees.
I live at 731 Columbine Drive. Since the fire, and flood, and the resultant new construction I feel that the influx of homes
that have become vacation rentals, and auxiliary dwelling units has negatively impacted the entire neighborhood.
On Columbine Dr and Narcissus I have identified several homes it seems are being used as vacation rentals and I am in
the process of checking if they in fact are paying the commercial rates for water, electricity, lodging tax and have
registered with a 2417 agent that can be contacted. At times, these locations are too noisy, and have way too many
vehicles moving up and down the road at excessive speeds.
We land owners have to pay for the upkeep on the road through an association. The vacationers have no idea nor do
they care about the road and subsequent costs . The home owner pays once (maybe) and the guest probably thinks it
is a municipality road.
We have seen dogs off leash, acting in a threatening manner to the point that we no longer feel we can walk in our own
neighborhood without a stick or other means of protection.
These rentals are a neighborhood breaker. Please do not make it any easier to allow more junk, noise, careless animal
control, and impolite drivers tearing up our road.
Steve Thom
Sent from my iPad
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ui=2&ik=54517dd5958,view=pt&search=inbox&th=156dd4311415efea&sim1=156dd4311415efea 1/1
City Trustees --
My family has owned the home at 1315 Devils Gulch outside of Estes Park for over
40 years. It has been an blissful sanctuary for us for decades, enjoyed by multiple
generations.
In the recent past, we have been tremendously dismayed by the amount of activity
and traffic at the 'home' across the street from us -- 1380 Devils Gulch.
We were horrified to recently learn from neighbors that the 1380 property is
being considered by you for an 'event center'. (Please note -- since sending this
email initially on or about 7/27, I have learned that the property is applying for
VRBO status, not that of an event center. It is my understanding that as of this
writing -- 8/3/16 -- that application is "on hold" by the Town Clerk's office. PF)
Please do not approve the process for this nightmare to occur!
The noise (LOUD music at all hours), the traffic (causing congestion on the road, at
the gate, at the blind corner), the lack of respect for wildlife (A TV's harassing
deer and elk), the illegalities (we have only witnessed fireworks -- I hate to think
what else may be occurring) have ruined our decades-long sense of quiet, calm,
privacy and solitude.
Historically this area has been appreciated by the families living there in single
family homes. When we purchased our house in the 70's, my folks carefully
examined the legal ownerships of properties near us, appreciating the 'location,
location, location' approach for such a major decision. There was of course
absolutely no HINT that an 'event center' would ever be approved so
nearby. Please respect our right to continue to enjoy the appropriate level of
occupancy in a really unique corner of the area, and deny any and all requests to
utilize 1380 as an event center.
Thank you in advance.
Patti Freuclenburg
pfreudenburgOgmadcoin
719.510.5301
29
Forwarded message
From: Jo Anne 011erenshaw <ollerenshawjoanne@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [EVRT] Estes Valley 9+ Short Term Vacation Rental Task Force August 30, 2016
Joint Town Board/County Commission Work Session
To: johnsosw@co.larimer.co.us, gaiterl@co.larimer.co.us, donnelta,colarimer.co.us, tjirsaa,este
s.org, wkoenigestes.org, bholcombaestes.org, pmartchinka,estes.org, wnelsonaestes.org,
Ron Norris <rnorris@estes.org>, cwalkera,estes.org
Cc: flancasteraestes.org, kthompsonAestes.org, pkleisler@estes.org, hoffmalca,co.larimer.co.0
Good Afternoon.
I was a member of the Estes Valley 9+ Short Term Vacation Rental Task Force, until a resigned
on July 20, 2016.
I know that you are making a decision tonight about the 9+ Short Term Vacation Rentals. I want
to let you know that the cleaned-up version of the minutes and status reports of the Estes Valley
9+ Short Term Vacation Rental Task Force is a joke!
• The Task Force was a stacked deck weighing in on the Estes Valley 9+ Short Term
Vacation Rental Side.
• Not only that, but the attitude and intention of the 9+ pro members never came to the
Task Force to "agree, to the extent practicable, on the best ways to craft regulations" as
the full time Estes Valley Residents did.
• The Pro-9+ members where rude, and bullied the full time residents.
If you, as an elected official, feels that you want this behavior and attitude to permeate the Estes
Valley, then you deserve the tsunami that will permeate the Estes Valley. Really, that is not
what the tourist or residents want; I a sure!!! Please think very long and hard about your
decision tonight. Many other communities around the country are dealing with the same thing
that the Estes Valley is contending with wth Short Term Vacation Rentals. These communities
have placed regulations, enforcement, or have stopped the STVR totally.
You will change the course of the Estes Valley History.
Remember that tonight, please.
I ask that you read the letter following that I wrote to Terry Gilbert when I resigned on July 20th.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jo Anne 011erenshaw
535 Hondius Circle
Estes Park, CO
847-220-0881 c
970-480-5297 h
ollerenshawioanne@gmail.com
Aug 3, 2016, at 7:16 AM, Jo Anne 011erenshaw <ollerenshawjoanneAgmail.com> wrote:
Terry,
I hereby resign from the [EVRT] Estes Valley Short Term Vacation Rental Task
Force. https://www.colorado.gov/pacifichownofestespark/vacationrentals
I find the rude attitude, inability to tell the truth, to find balance, to compromise, [and most
important] to follow the agreed upon rules of conduct to set forth by you, Terry Gilbert, and the
Larimer County Commissioners for the members of the Estes Valley Short Term Vacation rental
Task Force.
Ed Peterson, invited Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith to the rd to the last meeting, July
20, 2016. May I remind you that this same member also arrived late! Everyone was very polite
while the Sheriff was in attendance, but as soon as he left, the inappropriate attitude broke out. I
find this appalling ..... The same was the previous meeting when the owners of the currently run
STVRs had all their questions answered by the building code inspectors fro EP and Larimer
County.
The majority members have gotten the rules of conduct changed from consensus to majority
vote! The 7 of the 9 nine members that have a financial stake in their currently run 9+ SRVRs
have the majority. The deck is sacked!
Members who support the STVRs in the Estes Valley
1. Bill Van Horn, EP resident, Contractor [seems to be a reasonable individual]
2. Ed Peterson, EP resident, currently runs 9+ STVRs [verbally attacked members of the TF,
e.g., Richard Spielman multiple times each meeting, arrived late multiple times]
3. Jane Livingston, Out of state resident, currently runs 9+ STVRs [No even a resident of the
state of CO, missed a meeting, and whispered to many of her cohorts on the next meeting when
she returned after a missed meeting, arrived late and/or left early]
4. Judy Anderson, EP resident, realtor, and STVRs manager [seems to be a reasonable
individual]
5. Linda Moak, EP resident, currently runs 9+ STVRs [seems to be a reasonable individual]
6. Lindsey Lamson, EP resident [usually claimed that Estes Park has always been and always
will be a tourist town, implying no place for full time residents, also missed meetings]
7. Mick Scarpella, Fort Collins resident, currently runs 9+ STVRs [A Cease & Desis order on
his illegal properties, many complaints to the properties he manages by full time business-
residents who live in Estes Park, also missed meetings]
8. Rainer Schelp, EP resident, currently runs 9+ STVRs and manages STVRs
9. Millicent Cozzie, EP resident and retired Realtor from Iowa, will argue that she is a resident,
with no financial gains for the STVRs, which all of the above members are residents [EXCEPT
for Jane Livingston who lives in MN and owns STVR properties here in the Estes Valley].
Millicent will confer at public meetings with the STVR owners and will ask a STVR owner,
"does that make you .feel better...?" at a meetings.
Members who have concerns about STVRs in residential neighborhoods:
1. Richard Spielman — retired homeowner
2. Art Blume - retired homeowner
3. Fred Mares - retired homeowner
4. Claudine Perrault - homeowner, resigned from the Task Force June 29, 2016, after Jane
Livingston threatened Jo Anne 011erenshaw during the meeting. Throwing down her eye
glasses, Jane Livingston shouted "... if you do not close your mouth, I will close it for you!" then
lowered over me, with 2 members holding her down.
May I remind you, Terry, I was trying to stop, yet again, Jane, and the other members who
support the STVRs in the Estes Valley, from not following the guidelines: who bringing up
the parking issue again, after Jane was not at the previous meeting, when the parking issue
was voted upon. The guidelines of participation, rules and conduct indicated that is you
missed you could not go back and revise the discussion. Yet, Jane, Ed, Lindsey, and Mick
spent about 2 hours revisiting and revoting on the parking issue! sigh.....
5. Bernie Holien - retired homeowner, resigned from the Task Force after July 6, 2016 meeting.
6. Jo Anne 011erenshaw - retired homeowner, resigning from the Task Force, walked out during
the July 20, 2016.
These Guidelines were presented at the April 12, 2016 Study Session:
The Task Force is comprised of diverse and balanced perspectives. Its purpose is
to agree, to the extent practicable, on the best ways to craft regulations that
will significantly mitigate the possible impacts on the neighborhood and
community of vacation rentals housing nine or more guests. The question
of whether or not to allow this land use will be decided by the Town Trustees and
County
Commissioners. https://drive.google.comrnle/d/OB9AXIk2y8qsclt/LVZHTTMWD
Zwbzg/view
The guidelines were public and many of the Members who support the STVRs in the Estes
Valley were either at the meetings or knew of the document prior to their TF participation.
ALSO, at an earlier Joint Study Session: Vacation Homes Discussion with Town Board,
Planning Commission & County Commissioners, February 2nd, 2016 was recorded. During that
meeting [which has been edited out] Chief Wes Kufeld, from the sidelines, indicated that
the Task Force would NOT make decisions on
Enforcement http://estesgovtv.pegcentral.com/player.php?video=43ca613647c23e5c5f8ff9a847e
fffc3
However, we spent the first 3 meetings with continual conversations about enforcement; until
enforcement became the 'E' word in conversations. We were charted with the task "to agree on
the best ways to craft regulations that will significantly mitigate the possible impacts on the
neighborhood and community..."
Terry, you contacted everyone prior to the EVRT meetings [phone and e-mail] vetting the
prospective members, and asserting their agreement to the rules of conduct and
participation. From the very first meeting, many members could not attend or attended late.
Since that time, many members still arrive late, leave early, and continually fight to change the
rules of conduct and participation.
The Members who support and currently own 9+ STVRs in the Estes Valley are so disrespectful
and rude. the only think they can think about is with their wallet or purse. They are NOT
trying to craft regulations that will significantly mitigate the possible impacts on the
neighborhood and community of vacation rentals housing nine or more guests!
Jo Anne 011erenshaw
535 Hondius Circle
Estes Park, CO
847-220-0881 c
970-480-5297 h
ollerenshawjoanne@gmail.corn
My name is Ed Peterson, my address is 1295 Sixth Green Ln. Estes Park
Colorado.
I would like to say thank you for allowing me to be a part of the vacation
rental task force. It is my understanding that our charge was to recommend
enforceable rules for the nine and above vacation rentals. We were prohibited
from discussing enforcement from the beginning, however Terry said that we
would be allowed to discuss enforcement at the last meeting if we finished
all of our other tasks. It is very difficult to put together rules that are
enforceable without discussing enforcement. I have to confess that we did
occasionally slip into the enforcement mode with a lot more commonality in
our group.
Would like to discuss briefly the importance of enforcement as it relates
to...Licensing, Occupancy, Noise and Parking.
I believe all of these areas can be addressed in a positive way to root out the
noncompliant guests, owners & managers. In the big scheme of things, noise
issues have driven the task force and many other discussions regarding
vacation rentals... when in fact there were few complaints in comparison to
the number of vacation rental homes. Unfortunately, for those people that
have to live next to the problem rentals suffer tremendously. For whatever
reason, there was no enforcement. That should never happen again. The
Larimer County Sheriff, Justin Smith spoke to our task force and assured us
that he is most happy to enforce noise issues, and is most happy to provide a
backup for the county zoning department issues relating to parking,
occupancy & licensing.
Addressing these areas can be done without negative press from the tourists
who are a vital part of our community. However, guest must be held
responsible for their actions when they disregard reasonable rules. The
vacation homes in the Estes Valley account for approximately 40% of the
overall accommodations. The 9 and above play a very important part in the
family reunions that our community was founded on.
A. Vacation Rental License/Permit: A copy of the Vacation Rental
License/Permit along with the "Good Neighbor Policy", maximum
number of occupants, maximum number of cars, local contact phone
number, owners phone number, trash storage and pick up information,
quiet hours (no noise) along with the notification of issuance of citations
and amounts for any violations must be made part of a vacation rental
agreement as well as being posted in a conspicuous place within the
Vacation Rental home. Anyone who is not currently licensed should be
given until 15 September to become legally licensed. After that point
anyone who does not hold a license or permit should be issued an
immediate $5000 fine for not being properly licensed. Should there be a
second offense, they should have an additional $5000 fine and not be
allowed to operate for one full year. All vacation rental owners should be
required to display their license/permit number on any & all
advertising. Failure to do so would constitute a warning first time,
second offense a $250 fine and 3rd offense a $500 fine, fourth offense a
$1000 fine.
B. Occupancy. Studio: 2 persons total; 1 bedroom: 4 persons total; 2
bedrooms or more; 2 per bedroom plus 2 persons up to 8 bedrooms
with a total of 18 persons. 70% of the task force would recommend that
we do not count ages two and under.
C. Noise. We recommend Quiet Time from 10 PM to 8 AM, Hot Tub and
out-door noise should be kept to a minimum. " Excess noise is defined
as...Any sound that is plainly audible for one (1) minute or longer at a
distance of 25 feet or more when measured from the source property
line between the hours of 10 PM and 8 AM daily. During the day any sound
that is plainly audible for one (2) minute or longer at a distance of 50 feet or
more when measured from the source of the property line between the hours
of 8 AM and 10 PM is subject to a code violation of $500 spot fine, second
violation is a $2,500 spot fine, third violation, immediate removal from the
property. The party signing the vacation rental agreement is the responsible
party, the guests must be notified by the Owner/Mgr prior to check-in and
reminded again at the time of check-in reiterating that Noise carries and
infractions are subject to spot fines... so please be a good neighbor.
D. Parking. Tenants shall have no more than four (4) cars parked outside the
premise in designated areas. More than four cars parked outside would be
subject to a code violation of $500.00 spot fine, second violation is a $2,500
spot fine, third violation, immediate removal from the property. The party
signing the vacation rental agreement is the responsible party; the guests
must be notified by the Owner/Mgr prior to check-in and reminded again at
the time of check-in.
We strongly support and encourage the county and the town to contract
a 24/7-hotline service that will not only contact owners & managers
immediately if there is a complaint but also keep track of
complaints/caller. The owner should have one hour to contact/resolve the
issue; if the issue has not been resolved within one hour the service should
contact the enforcement officer. If it is a noise issue/party etc. we strongly
encourage the enforcement officer to get a backup officer from either the
Police Department or the Sheriff Department to accompanied them on such a
complaint. The code enforcement officer/police should issue a spot fine as
noted below. It is vitally important that the individual creating the
problem be fined immediately! The Owner/Manager fines should be
calculated per individual guest/reservation duration and the complaint is
confirmed to be valid. A property with valid/legitimate violation over a
designated amount should be penalized. The Owner/Manager fines should
apply to repeated violation by a single rental party/reservation. Repeated
failures by Owners/Managers to timely respond to complaints may result in
additional consequences.
Spot Fines have/are successfully collected by many major tourist areas!
Fines for Guest Violation Violator/Manager or Owner
(same guest repeating the same offense) (same guest repeating the same
offense)
1St Violation Warning No Fine, notification of citation
2nd Violation $500
$250, plus warning re: renewal fe
3rd Violation $2,500
$1,000, plus higher renewal fee
Fines for Owner/Manager should not be accumulative.
Regarding parking issues... There needs to be common sense involved as
there may be people that are being dropped off or picked up, perhaps an
owner is onsite with their vehicle making a repair etc. We understand the
parking can be an issue, however we also believe there should be designated
parking areas for the guests in order to not destroy the neighborhood
character, we need to come up with common sense solutions.
We would respectfully request that the town and the county appoint a
vacation rental owner and neighbor to be a part of the recommendation
process for any new rules or recommendations... This comment isn't
intended to discredit or diminish the importance of an administrator or
planning and zoning department, however most do not have the working
understanding of the industry. We should be able to work together to get it
done right the first time.
Respectfully Ed Peterson
Forwarded message
From: Tony Schetzsle <tschetzsleeyahoo.corn>
Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 7:40 PM
Subject: Comments - Estes Valley Planning Area Vacation Rentals Study Session
To: "jwilliarnsonestes.orci" <jwilliamsoneestes.orq>
Jackie:
If you would be so kind as to forward the following comments to participants at the subject study session
scheduled for the evening of August 29, you would have my appreciation and gratitude. I regret I did not get
this to you sooner.
Tony Schetzsle
2020 Monida Court
Estes Park, CO 80517
(970) 586-1148
Think Green! Print this message only if you must.
I offer for your consideration the following comments regarding vacation rentals in the Estes Valley Planning
Area which will be discussed at the Joint Study Session on Tuesday, August 30.
It is my opinion that defacto rezoning has occurred in residential areas by allowing short term vacation rentals
that are indeed businesses. Some argue it is 'a property use by right' and that 'property rights are under siege'. I
would argue that short term vacation rentals in a residential zone as businesses are not appropriate and should be
deemed illegal. Taking action against 'anything goes' mentality in the neighborhood is not siege mentality. It is
a means to ensure order through the zoning process and a means to ensure zoning restrictions and allowances are
uniform, commonly understood and applied. As a property owner or prospective property owner, that is
important. I chose to live in a residential zone not a quasi accommodation zone.
I would ask each of you to be bold and phase out short term vacation rentals in residential zones in the Planning
Area. Short of that, I recommend at least the following stipulations for vacation rentals be adopted in residential
zones as established in part, or wholly, elsewhere in the State of Colorado.
1> Short term rental properties must be the owner's principal residence. The address must appear on the
owner's voter or auto registration or the address at which the owner's children are registered for school. Proof
must be established that the owner lives in the residence.
2> The name on the license or permit to rent the property must be the same name on the deed of the property
and that name must be of a natural person, not any type of trust, partnership or company.
3> The property must have at least smoke and carbon monoxide detectors as well as meet all other applicable
building code requirements.
4> The owner must follow the applicable occupancy limits and follow special rules as exist and applicable.
Appropriate sales and lodging taxes shall be collected and submitted as required.
5> Short term rentals must be permitted and/or licensed by the appropriate entity which shall include the
equivalent of a business license. Annual fees for the permits and/or license shall be equivalent to the amount of
commercial tax rate for property that is not appraised and charged a commercial property tax. Note — If the
Town and the County are looking for revenue enhancement, a valid and justifiable source would be to collect a
commercial property tax rate for vacation properties operating as a business.
6> During any rental period, the owner or representative must be available to address any concern, complaint or
incident and have correct and current contact information on file with the Town or County and particularly with
neighbors within a 220 yard radius.
While these are general provisions I would hope could be enacted, they would obviously require discussion and
detail. I would add that it is time for the County Assessor to collect commercial property tax for all short term
vacation rentals operating in the Planning Area. There are those who say that the Estes Valley has always been a
tourist community. The ongoing evolution of economic policy and conditions should not be dictated by the past.
We should study our history and be mindful of it. But we should not be bound by it. To adopt a static approach
in a dynamic environment is folly.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these thoughts. The Estes Valley is not only for and about the
millions of visitors who frequent this special place. It is also about the residents who live and work here (if they
can find affordable housing). We count and we vote.
Respectfully,
Tony Schetzsle
2020 Monida Ct
Estes Park, CO 80517
{970) 586-1148
ascentplanningsoiutions@gmail.com
Ascent. Pidilthig solutions
970-231-1178
Land Use Consultation Design Owners Representative
August 25, 2016
Larimer County Board of County Commissioners
Estes Park Town Board
Vacation Rental Task Force
c/o Estes Park Town Clerk
To Task Force members, Board members and Commissioners:
The Estes Area Lodging Association (EALA) has contracted with Ascent Planning Solutions to evaluate
proposed Vacation Home regulations and provide comments to the Vacation Rental Task Force, the Estes
Park Town Board and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners.
Ascent and EALA would like to thank the Task Force for their months of deliberative efforts to take on
this difficult and largely debated social emergence. Vacation homes are a nationwide trend that the
traveling public has embraced as a preferred alternative for multi-day visits and have become a necessity
for destinations such as Estes Park that embrace a family brand.
Ascent and EALA support the proposal to amend the Estes Valley Development Code regarding vacation
homes. We believe vacation homes are a vital market force that cannot nor should not be eliminated or
restricted. History has shown time and again that denying market forces and imposing prohibitions tend to
drive that economy into a 'black market' instead of ending the behavior. This tends to incentivize illegal
activities rather than eliminating the activities.
Estes Park has been a vacation destination for over 150 years with vacation homes having a long-standing
tradition throughout the Valley. Traditionally these have been 'summer cabins' occasionally rented or lent
to friends and family. This traditional land use pattern has expanded in recent years due market forces
such as population increase and introduction of internet marketing and social media.
It is important to remember that vacation homes are by definition single-family dwellings. They are not
hotels. They are not resorts. And they do not generate that intensity of use. When vacation homes are
occupied for their 12-15 weeks a year they are typically occupied by families or small groups.
The other times of occupancy are by the property owner. Owners invest in these dwellings as second
homes for themselves and use them when possible throughout the year. These are their personal property
and tend to be well-cared for. A recent EALA survey of vacation homes owners finds that 90% of
vacation home owners would not rent their properties year-round. By making their home available for
short-term rental property owners are able to generate some cost recovery without the burden and impact
of a long-term renter.
A boutique land planning company specializing in Mountain Land Use and Development.
By their nature second-homes tend to remain vacant for the majority of the year. This has both financial
and social consequences.
From a fiscal perspective vacation homes generate property and sales taxes but require minimal
expenditure: they reduce impact on roads and other infrastructure and they do not send kids to school in
Estes Park. In other words, they provide the revenue benefits of a commercial property but draw on fewer
services than a typical residential property. This provides a net financial benefit to communities.
Social impacts from short-term guests tend toward common human social activities and are largely
confined to the summer months. This means for the majority of the year these dwellings have no impact
on a neighborhood.
The recent increase in vacation homes has led to a natural increase in conflicts between 'locals' and
-others'. Because of the potential for conflicts, Ascent and EALA recommend adoption of pragmatic
regulations that seek to minimize neighborhood impact through permitting, education and enforcement.
These can be summarized as:
• There should not be an artificial cap on the number of vacation homes. Economic forces will best
determine a natural limit.
• A yearly operating permit should be required. Regulations should allow for the denial or
revocation of permits if the property owner demonstrates contempt for the neighborhood through
repeated flagrant violations.
• Enforcement of violations should be focused on the offending party, not the property owner.
• Consider impact of building and fire codes on vacation homes.
The Town of Estes Park and the Estes Valley are unique within Larimer County. Tourism is the primary
economic driver and source of revenue. Vacation homes are an essential component in the modern
lodging industry and necessary to attract overnight visitors to Estes Park.
From the time William James opened the Elkhorn Lodge in 1873 to F.O. Stanley bringing electricity west
of the Mississippi, Estes Park has long history of lodging our visitors. Considering the presence of Rocky
Mountain National Park and the projected growth along the Front Range and throughout the inter-
mountain west, we believe that tourism will remain Estes Park's primary economic engine through the
21" Century regardless and accelerated social, environmental and technological changes.
We thank you for your careful deliberation of this sensitive subject and hope you find the community
wide benefits of vacation homes outweigh specific seasonal nuisances.
Respectfully,
Oawd 47 S'4/1-1
David W. Shirk, MUP, AICP
Principal, Ascent Planning Solutions
28
10/4/2016 Town of Estes Par k M ail Fwd: Vacation Rental limit to 8 in residential zoning
https://m ail.google.com /mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5bb48ca637&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1578deee513ad91a&sim l=1578deee513ad91a 1/2
Ali son Chilcott <achilcott@estes.org>
Fwd: Vacation Rental limit to 8 in residential zoning
1 mes s age
Terry Gilbert <gilberrt@c o.larimer.co.us>Mon, Oc t 3, 2016 at 10:23 PM
To: Alis on Chilc ott <ac hilc ott @es t es.org>
COL. Robert "Terry" Gilbert (ret.) AICP
Community Development Director
Larimer County
Cell: (970) 3051544
rtgilbert@larimer.org
www.larimer.org
Forwarded mess age
From: Theresa Oja <theres aoja@gmail.c om>
Dat e: Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:00 AM
Subject : Vac ation Rental limit to 8 in residential z oning
To: gilberrt@c o.larimer.c o.us , Kjholien <kjholien@aol.com>
Hi Teri and Bernie,
I don't hav e a way t o c ontac t t he Task Forc e but here are s ome of my thoughts :
I attended the las t Task Force meeting and came away very c onc erned.
Please c onsider only allowing vacat ion rentals ov er the current 8 occupant limit in areas z oned f or commerc ial and
ac c ommodat ions us e. Ev en in res ident ial z oning areas with larger lots an inc reas e in the number of oc c upants will hav e
a det rimental effect in many regards.
Over 8 occupants will mean larger gatherings of f amily reunions and groups of unrelated oc c upants for reunions,
weddings and other parties . I res pec tf ully dis agree wit h c ommit tee members who feel this is a residential use. With
larger numbers of renters it becomes a small hotel with no onsite supervis ion. This is an accommodations use and
s hould be res t ricted t o t hose areas designed for t his purpose. Us e of property in this manner by an owner should not
c ome at the expens e of neighbors regardles s of t he lot size.
Ev en in neighborhoods wit h larger lots these large gatherings on a week ly basis c ause increased nois e, traffic and
disruption to the res idential charac ter of t he neighborhood. Homes may s till be positioned fairly c los e t ogether and
s ound c arries .
In the c ounty there is not us ually a sheriff on duty after 10 or 11 at night. Who will provide enforc ement? While s ome
property managers /owners are respons ible t his is not always the case. The large houses by my home frequently already
hav e more than t he allowed renters. Sinc e the current rules are not being followed it does n't inspire a lot of conf idenc e
that increas ing the allowed number of lodgers won't create s ignific antly more problems.
I find it appalling that one of the property managers can s it in this c ommit tee and s tat e t hat their hav e been no
c omplaints about the larger properties they manage, when this is in fac t is a f als e statement.
In the c ounty where many of the larger homes are loc ated, an inc reas ed number of cars s hould als o not be allowed.
Ev en if the property can park a larger number of cars on appropriat e areas there are iss ues with ac cess ov er dirt roads
c aus ing dus t and maintenanc e of the roads. We f requently s ee 15 passenger v ans going in and out of the properties
nex t to us as one of the allowed cars , s o c learly renters hav e already f igured out how t o deal wit h c ar restric tions.
We are already hav ing difficulty wit h enforc ement, why would we increas e t he potent ial for conflict ? I hav e liv ed in t he
Es t es Valley for almos t 30 years and totally understand t he import ance of the touris t economy is but how c an we make
it work for the business owners (and that's what they are) and the ac tual res idents of our neighborhoods? I want t o be a
good neighbor and if feel that if the actual rules were enforced, t hen the Vac ation Rental issue would not be causing all
10/4/2016 Town of Estes Par k M ail Fwd: Vacation Rental limit to 8 in residential zoning
https://m ail.google.com /mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5bb48ca637&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1578deee513ad91a&sim l=1578deee513ad91a 2/2
these problems. Yes , t he rules will impact some t rans ient lodgers, however, loos e rules hav e a far greater impact on
the neighbors that liv e and work here day in and day out. P leas e don't make res ident ially z oned areas of the Es tes
Valley areas that no one actually wants to reside in.
I apprec iate all the time and effort the task force is putting into this difficult iss ue.
Kind Regards ,
Theresa Oja
10/7/2016 Town of Estes Park M ail public comments on cap of # of licenses.
https://m ail.google.com /mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5bb48ca637&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1544ed250098f35f&siml=1544ed250098f35f 1/2
Ali son Chilcott <achilcott@estes.org>
public comments on cap of # of licenses.
1 mes s age
Rebecca Urquhart <rebecca.l.urquhart @gmail.c om>Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:08 PM
To: ac hilcot t@es tes .org
Cc: Ronald Norris <ronaldfnorris@gmail.com>, wk oenig@estes .org, bholc omb@estes .org
Some ”P roperty Rights ” groups and the local and State Board of Realt ors are waging a campaign against c apping the #
of lic enses for s hort term rentals.
They are ignoring the property rights of the res idents who liv e and work in res idential zones – the right to “quiet
enjoy ment ” of their propert y, and the stated purpos e of t he v ac ation rent al code as it stands – to protec t residential
c harac ter.
When s hort term rent als in res idential zones was officially adopted as a “use by right”, the 2007 real es tate cras h had not
oc c urred (whic h put many 2nd home owners in a financ ial c rush requiring they rent to be able to keep their second
homes ), nor had the short term websites (VRBO, Airbnb, Homeaway) c ome int o play. The use of thes e websites has
made the inv entory of 2nd homes rent –by the day hotels. VRBO has grown by almos t 1200% in jus t 5 y ears.
Thes e c hanged c onditions hav e caus ed an explosion in s hort t erm rentals in res idential zones. I nvestors are buying
s ev eral houses, and a large percent age are owned by business entities , lik e LLCs . The effec t: the res idential zones are
bec oming nothing more than lodging zones , and the t rend will continue until there will be f ew hous es av ailable for full
time res ident s . “Use by right” is being charac teriz ed as a property right by the interests who are s imply f inanc ially
profit ing from this business – t he realtors , the Lodging As s oc iation (becaus e the hot els are also putt ing gues ts in
residences ), the propert y managers, and the new c rop of inv es tors who only st ay in the homes f or 1 2 week s (“ a time
s hare that pay s ”) or do use them not at all. S hort term rent al use by right was intended t o be a res ident ial right, not a
c ommerc ial right. The new VR owners are giv ing up their busines s interes ts, law prac tices, et c . to mov e to Estes Park
to manage thes e hotels. That activ ity should ex pand in the lodging zones , not res ident ial neighborhoods .
If a reasonable cap is not adopt ed, and als o a limit on the # of s hort t erm rental licens es an individual or bus ines s can
own, there will no longer be ANY res ident ial z ones.
All current lic ense owners will be “grandfathered”, and for a period of time, more will be av ailable. Therefore, none of the
c urrent owners will be deprived of this “property right” ( to rent s hort t erm). All they lose is the ability to keep growing
their businesses in res idential z ones. “Us e by right” s hould not be allowed to completely defeat proper land us e
regulations – c ourts routinely allow some c urtailment of unlimit ed property rights by zoning ordinances . If t here is no
c ap, the Trustees might as well jus t repeal all z oning.
It mak es s ens e t o hav e NO CAP in the Ac c ommodations or Mix ed Use z ones. Inves t ors and business c an buy or build
as many v ac ation rent als as they want in t hose z ones.. that is what t hey are z oned for. So, the cap on lic enses s hould
only apply t o t he Res idential Zones, and giv en t hat rev is ion from the Planning Commis s ion rec ommendation, 700 is
probably too high for the firs t y ear. Furthermore, f rom this point on, no one s hould be able t o hold more than one
lic ense.. eit her indiv idually or t hrough an LLC or other ent ity. The c urrent licens ees will be grandfathered, but no “s ec ond
home owner” needs a 3rd or 4th or 5th rental house, unless they jus t want to run a bus ines s . Thes e are residential areas,
and no plac e t o grow the lodging businesses.
10/7/2016 Town of Estes Park M ail public comments on cap of # of licenses.
https://m ail.google.com /mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5bb48ca637&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1544ed250098f35f&siml=1544ed250098f35f 2/2
Rꀀ e c䀀 L. Ur 䀡h䀀
At torney at Law
9705867586
105 Indian Trail
Estes Park, CO 80517
hph@hphanson.com
Howard P. Hanson
September 9, 2015
Mr. Phil Kleisler
Town of Estes Park
Dear Mr. Kleisler:
I am writing in response to the Town’s request for comments on the Planning Commission’s
review of “vacation rental” regulations. In doing so, I am discussing only the short-term rental
policies associated with residential properties (not long-term leases or what seems to be called
“bed and breakfast” accommodations) and expressing only my personal opinion (despite my
being an officer of our Property Owners Association, whose own policy I will cite below).
I believe that it is critical for the Planning Commission to consider carefully the long-term
implications of any amendments to the current regulations in the context of the overall
community push to diversify the Estes Valley’s economy. While tourism and its infrastructure,
including short-term rentals of homes in single-family residential zones, will always be a
component of any future economy, changes that further encourage investment in such homes as
income properties—rather than residences—will impede future diversification. The Commission,
in essence, has a choice about whether to work with the community as a whole toward
diversification of the economy or to move the Estes Valley toward a greater dependency on the
seasonal, tourist-oriented economy that has both been the tradition here and so thoroughly
limited the Valley’s prosperity.
Our neighborhood (what’s called “Cherokee Meadows”) has covenants that are more
restrictive than the Commission’s regulations, and we have interpreted them to disallow short-
term vacation rentals. I, as the Secretary-Treasurer (and past-president), am contacted now and
then by Realtors with questions about this—so I know that there are buyers who are looking for
investments in income properties. I’m not worried about my neighborhood (in contrast to, I’m
sure, are many of the folks you ’re hearing from); rather, I am looking to the future of the Valley
as a whole.
In my view, more restrictive regulations are appropriate. Fewer short-term rentals of private
homes in residential zones will tend to discourage investment buyers and therefore open the
market to people who want to live and work here, thus helping to move the Valley toward a more
diversified economy.
Feel free to contact me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Howard P. Hanson
From:Jane Bush
To:pkleisler@estes.org
Subject:vacation rentals
Date:Tuesday, September 08, 2015 8:02:24 PM
My greatest concern as a full-time resident is the impact a vacation rental near my home has
on the peace and quiet of my home. There appears to be little enforcement of occupancy
standards and noise violations when they occur. Right now I have two long-term rentals close
to me and I dread them being turned into vacation rentals and the increased traffic, noise, and
the lack of a consistent neighbor that would involve. Instead of having a relationship with my
neighbors and all the benefits that brings to a neighborhood, there would be a revolving door.
I have talked to several very frustrated year-round residents that have vacation rentals next
door and who consistently have noise complaints that are ignored by the town. It seems the
priority is always how many more people (tourists) can we possibly bring into Estes Park. At
some point though this reduces the quality of life for residents. To have a truly viable and
sustainable community attention must be paid to the quality of life for the people who live
here. I hope the new regulations address the concerns of residents and that there is actual
enforcement of the regulations. It is great to hear of property owners who address neighbors'
concerns and immediately head out to their property if a neighbor calls them. Unfortunately,
the reality is that most owner's don't do that.