Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2015-09-15Prepared: September 2, 2015 * Revised: STUDY SESSION AG ENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:00 a.m. Estes Park Town Hall, Room 202 11:00 Lunch Chair Hull 11:15 Review of Minutes (5 minutes) Chair Hull 11:20 Zoning 101 (60 minutes) Director Chilcott 12:20 Vacation Home Rentals Update & Discussion (60 minutes) Chair Hull Planner Kleisler 1:20 Adjourn to meeting Chair Hull Informal discussion among Commissioners concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 10:45 a.m. The public is welcome to attend study sessions; however, public comment will not be accepted. Times are approximate. The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Prepared: September 1, 2015 * Revised: September 8, 2015 AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION September 15, 2015 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, August 18, 2015, Planning Commission Meeting * 4. VAC ATION HOME RENTALS - REVIEW & DISCUSSION OF LAND USE OPTIONS POLICY Public comment will be accepted on proposed land use options policies involving vacation home rentals. 5. REPORTS A. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1. Estes Park Transit Facility & Parking Structure B. Estes Valley Planning Commission 1. Update on Downtown Neighborhood Plan process 2. Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan Modernization Update C. Estes Park Town Board D. Flood Recovery/Mitigation E. Other 6. ADJOURN RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 August 18, 2015 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 Hills, Murphree, Schneider, White and Moon Also Attending: Director Alison Chilcott, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Commissioner Klink Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 15 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 Candace Kane/ County resident spoke about the desire to rebuild a deck that was destroyed in the 2013 floods. She explained in detail what the flood waters did to their property. Repairs to the home were completed the end of 2013. Permanent sewer lines were installed in April, 2015. She requested the Planning Commission to consider a three-year window for rebuilding. The current time limit is one year. Glenn Malpiede/Town resident is a member of a vacation home owner group. He is working with two attorneys to provide a position statement and a white paper. After listening to the discussion concerning vacation home rentals at the study session, he requested the Planning Commission wait to make recommendations to the Town Board concerning vacation home regulations. His group supports revised regulations and wants to work with the Planning Commission on them. 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, July 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2015-04, ESTES PARK TRANSIT FACILITY & PARKING STRUCTURE, 500 Big Thompson Avenue Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The applicant, the Town of Estes Park, requests to build a four story, 414 space parking structure on government land just south of the Estes Park Visitor Center along Highway 36. In March, 2014, the Planning Commission approved a plan to construct a parking structure along Highway 34 to the east of the Visitor Center. Since that time, it has been determined the new proposed location would be a better fit for the structure by RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 August 18, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall achieving better access and fewer visual impacts. The applicant is requesting a Location and Extent Review to move the structure across the river to the other side of the property. Planner Kleisler stated the project would be built in two phases. Phase I would be the ground, or surface, level and a second level. The site is bordered by the Big Thompson River and the Estes Park Visitor Center to the north, the 9-hole golf course to the east (Federal land managed by the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District), Highway 36 and single-family residential homes to the down, and the downtown area to the west. The residential area is separated from the highway by a steep slope. The building site is 2.6 acres. The existing parking lot has 94 parking spaces, and is connected to the Visitor Center by two pedestrian bridges crossing the river. Those spaces would remain. Traffic entering the proposed structure would travel in a counter-clockwise direction. Planner Kleisler stated the application was reviewed for compliance with the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The Location and Extent review is intended to provide an opportunity for review of the location and extent of specified public facilities and uses sought to be construction or authorized within the Estes Valley. As with all government agencies in the Estes Valley, the applicant may exempt itself from local zoning regulations by a majority vote of the entire Town Board. The Planning Commission is the decision- making body for this development plan. The applicant has also applied for several variances, which will be heard by the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment on September 1, 2015 (pending the outcome of this meeting). Setback and height variances will be reviewed. Planner Kleisler stated the applicant is in negotiation with the Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) to use a portion of their property to the east. Because federally owned land is technically not zoned, the review process has been somewhat complicated. This project was reviewed using the standards for the CD–Commercial Downtown zone district. He stated the applicant and the BoR are close to making final decisions on the locations of the trail and golf cart path. If there are any minor changes to the plans following the negotiations, reviews and approvals would be made at staff level. Major changes would be brought back to the Planning Commission. Planner Kleisler stated the proposed is as a Park and Ride Facility is a use by right in the CD zone district. The plan attempts to limit grading disturbance by following the natural grade of the land as much as possible. The plan proposes extensive landscaping (flower beds, shrubs and trees) at the entryway to the structure. There is limited space available for screening along the spaces on the west side. Roadside light poles and planters will meet the intent of the EVDC for street frontage landscaping. The Town Parks Department will maintain the landscaping. All exterior lighting will comply with the standards in the EVDC. Light poles on the top level will be approximately 19 feet high (maximum height allowed is 25 feet). The applicant has requested three minor modifications to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, as follows: 1. Location of Parking. Section 4.4.D.3, table 4-7 requires that off-street parking not be located between the buiding line and the lot line in the CD zone district. In this case, a small handful of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 August 18, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall surface parking spaces to the west and east of the building wuill be slightly in front of the building line. The intent of the requirement is to maintain a “street wall” in the downtown area. 2. One-way Drive Aisle Width. Section 7.11.K.2 requires a minimum driveway width of 15 feet for large, non-residential uses. The ground level plan proposes a 14-fot one-way drive aisle entering from the existing surface spaces on the west. 3. Stall Dimensions. As with the original submittal, the applicant proposes slightly shorter stall lengths, which are generally consistent with industry best practices for parking structures. The intent of the request is to help minimize the structure footprint, while still allowing for comfortable movement within the structure. The applicant proposed the following alterations: Stall Depth 17’9” (19’6” standard requirement), Stall Width 8’6” (9’0” standard requirement, and Drive aisle 26’0” (24’0” standard requirement). Additionally, the smaller stall depth will encourage drivers to drive further into the stall, thus keeping a wider drive aisle for vehicles passing through. While the stall will be slightly shorter than the 19’6” requirement, the total length will be more than the minimum required. Planner Kleisler stated concern has been expressed by Commissioner Moon concerning the ability of large vehicles (pickups and SUVs) to maneuver through the structure and fit into the spaces. Planner Kleisler added some vehicles with rear bicycle racks or trailer hitches would possibly extend into the drive aisle. The Commissioners would need to consider those issues when making their decision. Planner Kleisler stated the application was routed to affected agencies and adjacent property owners for review and comment. The typical distance for neighbor notification is 500 feet; however, notices for this project were sent to all property owners within 1500 feet of the site. Additionally, a press release was published on July 31, 2015. As of August 6, no formal written comments were received. One public comment was received late last week and was included in the meeting material packets. Staff Findings 1. If revised to comply with recommended conditions of approval, the application will comply with applicable sections of the Estes Valley Development Code, as described in the staff report. 2. The application is consistent with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Adequate services and facilities are available to serve the development. 4. The requested Minor Modification concerning the location of parking relieves practical difficulties in developing the site. 5. The requested Minor Modification concerning the parking stall and driveway dimensions results in more effective open space preservation. 6. The Planning Commission is the Decision-making Body. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 August 18, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Planner Kleisler stated staff recommended approval of the development plan, with conditions of approval listed below. Public Comment Greg Muhonen/Public Works Director and applicant, thanked Planner Kleisler for his cooperation with the project, saying the process has been a positive experience. Mr. Muhonen stated the original project was put out to bid in November, 2014 and came back over budget. The previous site proposal required the ingress and egress points for the shuttle services to be at a different location than private vehicles. There were studies completed that indicated wait times for vehicles to turn left out of the parking structure onto Highway 34 could be as long as 10 minutes. The original structure wasw designed with three stories and hil……………………. Terry from the BLM is in attendance. It has been a positive experience. He introduced the team from Walker Parking Consultants, Ginny McFarland. Bid the original project in November 2015 and came in over budget . The previous site proposal required ingress and egress for shuttles to be at a different point than private vehicles. Could be 10 minute delays in getting out of the parking lot. Original was 3 storys and …………..spaces. Proposed structure moves to the other side of the river. Pointed out the existing utilities. Looked at may issues and alternatives to find an affordable alternative that met the grant funding requirements. Only two levels could be built on the north side location. On the south side, it was determined 109 spaces could be provided in a two level structure . If the sturcutre is expandd to four levels, the structure could yield 311 news apkring spaces at a cost of $31K per stall, compared with ……………….. Current lot has 102 existing spaces (main lot and on the side). Phase I two level = 109. There has been coordination with the rec destrict and have arrived at the current proposal to improve the separation between the structure and the golf course. Fence would be installed ……………………………… A new service access road is proposed on the north and west side of the strcutre to serve the BoR river maintenance needs and fire truck access needs. This would ……………………………. The existing landscaped island on the open west end would be removed and improved. Utilities – having cars parked on a surface lot does not require fire hydrants. However, having a parking structure triggers fire hydrant requirements. Porposal to extent water main fro the current parking lot on the north side to go under the river in order to install two fire hydrants. Landscaping proposed would create an attractive entrance to the Estes village. Oportunity to make a wonderful landscaped entry statement into the town. Landscaping will be comp;leted by town staff. Lowest floor of the structure lies below the level of Hwy 36. Concerning minor modeification for one-way drive aisle width…………………………… Showed photo simulations of the structure as phased. Stair tower would be built with phase II – would allow an observation point. Devcelpoment code requirement to not block the rivew of the Stanley. Good shape in that regard, with the exception of 4.6 seconds as they drive by the parking structure. Not chaning the shuttle routes – they would still be in the north lot. This new lot would be only for guest parking. T intersection makes it a better process. He projected out the average traffic delay with the addition of phase II. Other alternatives – prevent left turns during significant events – not excited about putting a signal then. However; in RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 August 18, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall 2040, as projected, the time to exit the structure would not be acceptable and a traffic signal may be needed. Geographically situated in a place that would work well for signal ……………… coordination??? Parking size modification request – conessession in en effort to find a compro ise with the rec district to have a definite separation beween the structure and the trail/golf course. 24% of parking spaces with Phase I are the same as they are today (compliant with the Town standards). Spaces in the parking structure itself will acoommodatee standard vehicles, but not extended cabs or oversized vehicles. Ginny McFarland – will review minor modifications. 1st – little slivers of the setback that the structure would encroach into. Goal is to not create a non compliant piece of land. …………………… 2nd – onve- way drive width – not changing the level of services of driveability in or out of the parking structure. 3rd – stall length and width. Rquet to reduce the overall by 1.5 feet. Trying to create a smaller building footprint, traying to e sensitive to the golf course. Chair Hull commented on the tightness of the proposed stalls and was concerned about having enough room to get in and out of the vehicles. Anirud. Based on parking standards that have done over 50 years of research. The proposed stall cooply with national standards. Greg – the current proposal would not allow large vehicles to have enough room. This parking arage is not specifically designed for large vehicles. If the spaces are made larger, we wold lose 24 spaces. Mike Moon stated surface pakring would be just as bad. Greg – 8 surface space that won’t be touched…………………………………. PC would need to decide whether or not that number of spaces is a reasonable amount. Sharry – we may have a larger number of oversized vehicles that pull RVs. Has there been discussion about a mix of different sized parking spaces to accommodate large and compact sized spaces. Greg – reduction to footprint is from discussion with the rec district. Could provide an option for compact cars and larger oversize vehicle parking . Nancy said we could have better signage. Greg – last week he applied for a grant? For electronic signs that would be used to guide visitor to available parking spaces. Lighting plan is fully compliant. Public Comment Paul Fishman/Town resident addressed concerns about left hand turns when the previous plan was being considered. Supportive of having left turns out of the proposed structure. Parking stall comments – drivers of large vehicles have an expectation that they will need to find alternative parking instead of using the structure. Shuttles going west should go out of the south lot. He would not agree that this parking lot is considered “downtown”. Glenn Malpiede – supports Sharry’s suggestion for compact/large vehicle. Supports additional signage. Staff and and Commission Discussion It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Hills – approved with findings and conditions an allowing for further study for mixed vehicle use (pertaining to size) and additional signage. Unanimous with one absent. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 August 18, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Greg – will be applying for a grant to build all four levels at the same time. It was moved and seconded (Klink/Hills) to approve the Amended Development Plan 06-01D, with the findings and conditions recommended by staff and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 4. REPORTS A. Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 1. Wilson Residence variance, Hummingbird Drive, was approved at a special Board meeting on July 28, 2015. Lot was such that the size of the lot and the size of the setbacks made the entire lot in setbacks. 2. Downtown plan – deadline for proposal submittals was Wednesday. Receive d 8 proposals. High quality. Worked with a group of community members, Staff, and Comm. White to review each proposal in detail. The committee determined there were two top proposals that would be interviewed, with a formal recommendation going to TB at the first meeting in September. Following acceptance, staff would enter into a contract with the consultants to begin the process. 3. Vacation Home Update Process – estes.org/vacationrentals. With the initial engagement meeting this summer. In Phase I now, Phase II will start in September. September 11th RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 August 18, 2015 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall community meeting with the public to discuss recommendations. Initial recommendations were refined at the first public meeting. August 25th TB meeting will hear recommendations. Number of parties (number of people) that can be rented to????? Different fee structure, and adding a county fee, how to maintain residential character, occupancy limit, maximum number per rental, contact with neighbors. Ordinance presented in November and Decmeber, to be effective in January, 2016. 4. County commissioners approved the cell tower on Propsect mountain. Bilding permit has been appied for. 5. Zoning 101 – at the last tb study session, staff presented a zoning basics overview to the TB. Brief history of zoning, overview of our zoning code, and how it applies to our community. If the PC desires to hear that presentation, please let us know. It was provided to the TB to aide in their decision making. General consensus to hear the presentation at a future study session. 6. 7. There being no further business, Chair Hull adjourned the meeting at 2:57 p.m. ___________________________________ Betty Hull, Chair ___________________________________ Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report To: Estes Valley Planning Commission From: Philip Kleisler, Planner II Date: September 15, 2015 RE: Review of Draft Recommendation for Vacation Rentals Objective: 1. Provide an update on the project scope, timeline and public forum; and 2. Review and obtain guidance for refined public policy options prior to presenting a final staff recommendation to the Town Board and County Commissioners. Present Situation: The Town hosted a public forum in May, 2015 to hear from the community on the issue of vacation home rentals; over 90 people were in attendance. Staff has since worked to refine the options to be responsive to public input. Revised public policy options were provided to the Town Board and County Commissioners last month; the report and minutes are attached for the Commission’s review. Proposal: Project Scope, Timeline and Public Forum The table below outlines the major tasks and milestones associated with this project. As reported in previous meetings, staff intends to finish most of the work this year, barring any unforeseen issues. Phase Date Description Initial Project Engagement April  Project webpage published. May 14  Public Forum #1 to present project plan and receive initial feedback. May 26  Town Board Work Session update on final project scope and timeline. June 16  Planning Commission update on final project scope and timeline. June 15  County Commissioner Work Session update on project scope and timeline. Phase Date Description Refining the Product Aug 25  Town Board Study Session to review the refined public policy options. Aug 31 County Commissioner Work Session to review the refined public policy options. Sept 11 Public Forum #2 to receive feedback on refined public policy options. Sept 15 Planning Commission Study Session to provide input on land use components of public policy options for elected officials’ consideration. Oct Joint Town Board/County Commissioner Study Session to review and comment on draft ordinance. Oct 20 Planning Commission public hearing and formal recommendation for ordinance package. Dec 8 Town Board adopts ordinance package Dec 14 County Commissioners adopts ordinance package Town staff has refined many of the initial policy options to reflect public input received throughout the project. The topics presented to the Town Trustees and County Commissioners are attached to this report for the Planning Commission’s review. Other topics discussed in the white paper, such as license management are being discussed in the September 11 public forum. Advantages: • See the attached tables for advantages of each option. Disadvantages: • See attached tables for disadvantages. Action Recommended: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the attached policy opinions pertaining to land use issues, which include all options except the table titled “Fee Structure.” Staff will also provide a brief verbal summary of input received from the public forum scheduled for September 11. Planning Commission input will be incorporated into a final policy recommendation to the Town Board and County Commissioners in October. The final step is the adoption of an ordinance in November/December. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest High. The public meeting on May 14 attracted many more people than anticipated. Staff is also receiving consistent written and verbal comments on the topic. Attachments: 1. Town Board Report 2. Town Board Minutes 3. Public Comments COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Board of Trustees Town Administrator Lancaster From: Alison Chilcott, Director Philip Kleisler, Planner II Date: August 25, 2015 RE: Review of Draft Recommendation for Vacation Rentals Objective: 1. Provide an update on the project scope and timeline; 2. Review the results of the housing analysis requested by the Trustees on May 25 to determine if the increasing number of short-term vacation rentals in the Estes Valley is causing a decrease in available long-term rentals; and 3. Review and obtain guidance for refined public policy options prior to hosting a public forum and drafting an ordinance for the Board’s consideration. Present Situation: As with many mountain communities, the Town of Estes Park is experiencing high demand for visitors that want to stay in homes during their vacation. Earlier this year Town Board directed staff to initiate a public process to amend regulations for vacation home rentals. The Town hosted a public forum in May, 2015 to hear from the community on this issue; over 90 people were in attendance. Staff has since worked to refine the public policy options to be responsive to public input; these options area now being presented to the Trustees for comment prior to the upcoming public forum on September 11, 2015. Proposal: Project Scope and Timeline The table below outlines the major tasks and milestones associated with this project. As reported in previous meetings, staff intends to finish most of the work this year, barring any unforeseen issues (e.g. different policy direction from the Trustees or Commissioners). Phase Date Description Initial Project Engagement April  Project webpage published. May 14  Public Forum #1 to present project plan and receive initial feedback. May 26  Town Board Work Session update on final project scope and timeline. June 16  Planning Commission update on final project scope and timeline. June 15  County Commissioner Work Session update on project scope and timeline. Refining the Product Aug 25  Town Board Study Session to review the refined public policy options. Aug 31 County Commissioner Work Session to review the refined public policy options. Sept 11 Public Forum #2 to receive feedback on refined public policy options. Sept 15 Planning Commission Study Session to provide input on land use components of public policy options for elected officials’ consideration. Oct 13 Joint Town Board/County Commissioner Study Session to review and comment on draft ordinance. Oct 20 Planning Commission public hearing and formal recommendation for ordinance package. Dec 8 Town Board adopts ordinance package Dec 14 County Commissioners adopts ordinance package Housing Analysis During the May 26 study session, Trustees asked staff to determine if the increasing number of vacation home rentals in the Estes Valley is causing a decrease in available long-term rentals. In response to this question, staff analyzed two scenarios that are briefly described below. The results of the two scenarios indicate that vacation rentals play a role in decreasing the long-term rental housing stock; though quantifying the exact amount is difficult. Staff is providing this initial analysis with the recommendation that other,further reaching measures be considered to address workforce housing (listed below). Additionally, consultants that specialize in this type of work could likely provide a more precise and statistically valid analysis. 1. Summary of Selected Housing Characteristics For the purpose of this discussion, three types of household uses are considered: • Household Units are considered by the Census to be a house, apartment, or group of rooms intended for occupancy. • Seasonal Units are a subset of Housing Units that are only occupied during a portion of the year (e.g. a summer lake house or winter ski lodge). The Census Definition for Season Units reads in part that “While not currently intended for year-round use, most seasonal units could be used year-round.” • Vacation Homes are generally considered to be a subset of Seasonal Units. These homes, as defined in the Estes Valley Development Code, are rented for less than 30 days at one time. Figure 1 below illustrates this relationship and shows that roughly 1/3 of the Housing Units in the Estes Valley are Seasonal. Vacation homes are a relatively small portion of the total Housing Units. By permitting vacation homes in the Estes Valley, the Town is allowing what would otherwise be a vacant Seasonal Unit to be placed on the vacation home market. The exception to this statement is homes that are purchased with the sole intent of being a year-round vacation home. Figure 1: Selected home uses in the Estes Valley. When comparing Census counts from 2000 and 2010, the increase in Seasonal Units does not exceed the increase in Housing Units (Figure 2). However, when considering the percentage increase during that same time it is clear that Seasonal Units are increasing at a much faster rate (Figure 3). 2. Scenario 1: Investor Model The report released this year by the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) stated that “while concerns over the impacts of the proliferation of VHR’s has had on housing for the workforce, few attempts have been made to quantify the impacts. Evidence is anecdotal but many communities feel loss of units is significant…” The City and County of San Francisco recently conducted an analysis on how short- term rentals impact the housing market in San Francisco.1 A major impetuous for the study appears to be a recent increase in evictions for the purpose of converting homes into vacation rentals. Staff recreated a component of the San Francisco report by using similar methods and assumptions (more thoroughly outlined in Attachment 1). This limited analysis suggests that the current pool of vacation home rentals takes 26 units (or 9%) of what the Census classifies as Vacant, For Rent properties (2010). 3. Scenario 2: Workforce Housing Model The second scenario was an attempt to model comments Town staff hear throughout the community: smaller vacation homes are taking long-term rentals off the market. Staff assumes that these types of comments refer to smaller, affordable homes. Therefore, by considering the Median Household Income of Estes Park, an affordable monthly rent is roughly $1,495. Staff further assumes: • That $1,495 could reasonably rent up to a three bedroom home. • That absent of being rented as a vacation home, the one-, two- and three- bedroom rentals would be suitable, and therefore likely used as, a long-term rental. Using the mapping data gathered in Scenario 1, this model suggests that upwards of 242 potential long-term rentals are taken off the market as a result of short-term rentals, or 83% of what the Census classified as Vacant, For Rent properties (2010). This final result reflects the number of one-, two- and three-bedroom rentals mapped earlier this year from the website www.VRBO.com. The most important caveat to both models presented in this report is that some vacation home rentals would never be used as a long-term rental, either because of personal preference or the owner’s desire to visit the home while on vacation. 1 This report, titled “Analysis of the impact of short-term rentals on housing” is available here: http://1.usa.gov/1J81ONC 4. Next Steps Given the wide ranging results summarized above, staff recommends that the Trustees discuss, at a future date, specific ways to more fully address the lack of workforce housing. Some land use topics to discuss could include: • Identify and consider rezoning areas in the community that are well suited to workforce housing to R-1 Residential. This zone district was specifically established to build workforce housing, but represents less than 1% of current zoning; • Affordable Housing Impact Fee for development; and • Permit the long-term rental of Accessory Dwelling Units. Refined Public Policy Options Town staff has refined many of the initial policy options to reflect public input received throughout the project up to this point. The topics presented in Attachment 2 have been developed to a point that requires further consideration by the Trustees. Other topics discussed in the white paper, such as license management, is not yet complete. 1. Fee Structure Staff has concluded a fee structure analysis and is recommending a tiered fee structure, both within town and the unincorporated Valley. The analysis included a review of the CAST Report and specific benchmarking against Steamboat Springs and Breckenridge, who had a high license compliance rate. The fee would be structured as follows: • $150: Base Fee • $50: Each Additional Room • $50: Renting a Single Room While Owner is Present (if the Board pursues the “AirBnb Option” below) 2. Occupancy Limit A common theme in the public forum was to preserve residential neighborhood character, yet another popular (yet competing) concept was increasing the occupancy limit in rentals. In an attempt to achieve a balanced approach, staff recommends that the Trustees consider requiring a Conditional Use Permit when the occupancy is above the current limit of eight (8) people. This concept allows the Planning Commission to review and neighbors to comment on some rental operations, while still leaving the window open for owners to potentially rent their home. 3. Residential Character Concerns were expressed during the public forum about the need to ensure vacation rentals do not erode residential neighborhood character. Some communities have limited the number of rentals in a given area. In Durango for example, only one (1) vacation rental is permitted on a street segment. Additional homes that wish to operate on that street must obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Staff is bringing an option to the Trustees to establish a limit on the number of vacation rentals per street segment or within a given radius, with additional rentals within that area requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permits have similar review standards to that of a Special Review, but area reviewed solely by the Planning Commission. 4. “AirBnb Option” The website www.AirBnb.com has risen in popularity over the years in part by facilitating the rental of single rooms on a short-term basis while the owner remains in the house. The current regulations prohibit this use, which has created a small underground market. Staff is bringing forward an option to the Trustees to permit this type of use in smaller homes, in essence creating a “mini-bed and breakfast” use. 5. Notices and Local Contact Another popular theme during the public forum was better communication with neighboring properties. To that end, staff is bringing an option to the Trustees to establish some level of communication through mailings and a Town-maintained webmap. Advantages: • See the attached tables for advantages of each option. Disadvantages: • See attached tables for disadvantages. Action Recommended: Staff is requesting direction from Trustees regarding the attached recommendations. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest High. The public meeting on May 14 attracted many more people than anticipated. Staff is also receiving consistent written and verbal comments on the topic. Attachments: 1. Investor Model Methods and Assumptions 2. Public Policy Options 6,080 7,082 1,678 2,152 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 2000 2010 Housing Charactoristics: 2000 vs. 2010 Total Housing Units Seasonal Housing Units 2% 19% 22% -7% 14% 39% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Rental Market Size Total Housing Units Seasonal Use % Change in Housing Use: 2000 vs. 2010 Town Valley Figure 2: Change in Housing Units and Seasonal Unit Counts (Census) Figure 3: Change in home use in the town and unincorporated Estes Valley (Census) Attachment 1: Investor Model Methods and Assumptions    1      Methods The City and County of San Francisco recently evaluated the potential impact of vacation home rentals to their long-term housing stock. This study began by first distinguishing between hosts who rent out their homes or rooms in their home on an occasional, or casual, basis, and those who rent their homes for the express purpose of renting on the short-term market. As such, the report classified all owners of vacation home rentals as either casual or commercial hosts.  Casual hosts were defined as those who list their unit for rent a few weekends throughout the year or while on an out-of-town trip (overall, less than 58 nights per year). Casual hosting was assumed to have little or no impact on the long-term rental market because the homes would not become a long-term rental, given that the owner resides in the home most of the year.  Commercial hosts were assumed to book their vacation home rental more heavily (over 58 nights per year), thus requiring that the owner be away from their house for two or more months each year. Commercial hosting was assumed to reduce the number of homes available for long-term renting. A commercial host is often one that practices short-term renting as a business instead of listing a unit on the long-term rental market.  Town staff mapped all vacation home rentals listed on the site www.VRBO.com in June, 2015. Specific attribute data was recorded for each listing: the general location, website link, number of bedrooms, listed occupancy limit and number of reviews.  The San Francisco report assumes that 72% of vacation home guests leave a online reviews after their stay. This assumption is based on a public statement by the AirBnb Co-Founder and CEO. Town staff used this assumption, even though our analysis centered on a different website (VRBO). We then multiplied 72% by the number of reviews to calculate the number of days the rental has been on the market. Findings Based on the thresholds described above to distinguish between casual and commercial hosts, Figure 1 below shows the distribution of the 337 VRBO listings from June 2015. As presented in Table 1 below, this analysis assumes 311 casual hosts and 26 commercial hosts. Table 1. Number of casual and commercial hosts in the Estes Valley. Host Type Number of Rentals Casual Hosts 311 Commercial Hosts 26 Attachment 1: Investor Model Methods and Assumptions    2    When adding the number of commercial hosts to the number of vacant units, and calculating the percentage of total units potentially for rent, the analysis suggests that commercial hosts represents 9% of the total number of potential units for rent in the Estes Valley (Table 2). Table 2: Impact on Vacant for Rent Housing of Commercial Short-term Rentals. Host Type Rental Market Size Census 2010 Vacancy For Rent Census 2010 Number of Commercial Host Total Potential Units for Rent Vacant + Commercial Hosts Commercial Listings as a % of Total Potential for Rent Commercial 6,930 258 26 284 9% In summary, this limited analysis suggests that the current pool of vacation home rentals takes 26 units (or 9%) of the total number of units potentially available for rent off the market. However, this number has the potential to increase or decrease due to two important local considerations. First, some owners of vacation home rentals enjoy occasionally using the rental during the off season, which would not be possible if renting the unit on a long-term basis. This factor could therefore lead to the 9% being lowered. Conversely, the actual number of vacant rentals in the marketplace is likely much less than the Census count of 258. Therefore, one may also assume the 9% could be much higher given the actual (i.e. lower) number of vacant rentals in the Valley.     Attachment 2: Public Policy Options    Fee Structure Fee structure should adequately cover staff time to process and track each home, especially when code violations occur.  Community Input  Increase code compliance with additional fees (highest weighted response to this topic)  Establish fines for violations  RECOMMENDED OPTION Fee Structure PROS CONS  Increase the Town fee to be consistent with similar communities and adequately cover staff time associated with compliance.   Establish same fee structure in unincorporated Valley.   Within Town Limits:   $150 base fee  $50 for each additional room  $50 to rent single room (if Board pursues that amendment)  Within Unincorporated Valley  $150 base fee  $50 for each additional room  $50 to rent single room (if Board pursues that amendment)   Will fund a seasonal staff member to focus on license compliance and code enforcement.  None noted. OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERATIONS No change alternative The current fee structure does not allow any additional staff time to be proactive towards license compliance or an increased focus on code compliance.  The current fee structure is listed below:  Within Town Limits:   $150 fee Within Unincorporated Valley  No fee                       Attachment 2: Public Policy Options    Occupancy Limit Allow greater flexibility for larger homes to host larger parties.   Community Input  Relate the occupancy limit to lot size and/or square footage of home, number of bedroom and proximity to neighbors.   Ensure that infrastructure supports higher number.  Have reasonable rules that are easy to follow.  RECOMMENDED OPTIONS PROCESS OTHER CONSIDERATIONS PROS CONS Increase occupancy limit in some cases.   Allow rentals to host parties greater than eight (8) by obtaining a Conditional Use Permit.   The intent of a Conditional Use Permit is to mitigate potential adverse impacts on the neighborhood, environment and public infrastructure.  These are reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.   ‐or‐  Permit a larger occupancy cap so long as the lot size is 1.33 times the minimum lot size of the zone district.  This is one of the current standards for Accessory Dwelling Units and is simple to administer.    Applicant signs an affidavit with application certifying that all bedrooms meet Building Code threshold of a room (e.g. proper egress).  Allows nearby residents to provide input and additional reviewing agencies to comment (e.g. Larimer County Health Department, Fire District).  Other uses, such as Household and Small Group Homes, will likely need to be increased to ten people for consistency and compliance with the Fair Housing Act.  OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERATIONS No change alternative: maintain current occupancy limit.  The current regulations allow for two people, plus two people per bedroom (not to exceed eight).     Decrease occupancy limit.   Not requested at this time. Do not require an occupancy limit in any case.  The following list is what was recently available through www.VRBO.com , along with the number of people that would be permitted in a home should this options be pursued.    1 Bedroom –  4 people 2 Bedroom ‐   6 people  3 Bedroom –  8 people 4 Bedroom –  10 people 5 Bedroom –  12 people 6 Bedroom –  14 people 7 Bedroom –  16 people 8 Bedroom –  18 people 9 Bedroom –   None in Valley at that time 10 Bedroom – 22 people       Attachment 2: Public Policy Options    Residential Character At times, the number of vacation home rentals in a given area erodes the residential neighborhood character.  Community Input  Preserve and protect the character of residential neighborhoods (highest weighted response to this topic).  More code enforcement  Have caps and lotteries for new licenses  RECOMMENDED OPTIONS SPACING ADDITIONAL HOMES NON‐CONFORMING PROS CONS Limit vacation rental homes in specific areas Establish a limit on the number of rentals per street segment or within a given radius of existing rentals.  Additional vacation rental homes may be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit, reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.  These permits are also revocable through the Planning Commission.  Homes that were legally established prior to this regulation becoming effective may continue in accordance with EVDC Chapter 6 Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lots.  Helps preserve residential character by limiting vacation rentals in established residential neighborhoods.  Allows impacted neighbors a voice in the decision‐making process.  Conditional Use Permits are revocable, should the applicant not comply with permit conditions of approval.    Will ultimately impact the ability of some rentals to become established.  However, this requirement will likely encourage such rentals to relocate to areas more appropriate for accommodation uses (e.g. A‐1 Accommodations district). OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERATIONS No change alternative Staff has received numerous comments about too many vacation home rentals in a given area impacting the residential character.  The current regulations allow for an unlimited number of rentals in residential districts.                        Attachment 2: Public Policy Options    “AirBnb option” The rental of a single room while the owner is also present is prohibited.  The prohibition has created an underground market with no fee collection.  Community Input  No data collected yet.  RECOMMENDED OPTION Location NON‐CONFORMING PROS CONS Allow rental of room(s)  while owner is present.   Allow a homeowner to rent a single room (or rooms) of their home for less than 30 days while remaining on site.  This would not apply to Accessory Dwelling Units.  Would be permitted in certain residential zone districts.   House size should be limited.  For example, some municipalities limit the size to 2,500 square feet, which larger homes considered a bed and breakfast.  No units currently being rented in this manner will be considered non‐conforming, as this is not currently a permitted use.   Provides supplemental income for some Estes Park residents.    Property owner is on site and therefore able to quickly address any land use conflicts (e.g. noise, trash, etc.).    Addresses what is currently an underground market.   Less enforcement would be necessary as the underground market becomes licensed.    Creates a third level of regulations: Bed and Breakfasts, Vacation Homes and these smaller homes. OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERATIONS No change alternative Continue to prohibit this type of use.                       Attachment 2: Public Policy Options   Notices Ensure that nearby neighbors have all necessary contact information in the event that vacation home guest become disruptive.  Community Input  Require notification of neighbors within a 5‐home radius  RECOMMENDED OPTION AUDIENCE CONTENT PROS CONS The rental owner or local contact shall mail or deliver contact information to surrounding properties. Neighbors to rental.  Notice of a vacation home license issuance and license number.   Contact information for owner and local contact.  Town contacts.   Strengthens communication between rental owner and direct neighbors.     None noted at this time. Require informational posting in a conspicuous location inside the rental unit.  Hosted party.  Copy of permit.  Contact information for local contact and/or owner  Location of fire extinguisher  Trash and recycling information.   Strengthens communication between owner and rental parties.     None noted at this time. Require vacation home rental permit number to be displayed on all advertisements and listings.  Town Code Compliance.  License or Permit number.  Easier identification for code compliance purposes.  None noted at this time. Maintain an online map with the general location of vacation home rentals.   Neighbors to rental.  General location.   Local contact information.    Allows nearby neighbors easier, 24/7 access to contact information.    Privacy concerns due to potentially vacant homes being displayed online.  However, the general location of the homes and availability is currently available online through sites like www.VRBO.com.   OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERATIONS No change alternative No notice requirements are current in place.                   Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado August 25, 2015 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 202/203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 25th day of August, 2015. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem Koenig, Trustees Ericson, Holcomb, Nelson, Norris and Phipps Attending: All Also Attending: Town Administrator Lancaster, Assistant Town Administrator Machalek, Town Attorney White, Manager Ash, Planner Kleisler and Town Clerk Williamson Absent: None Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. FALL RIVER TRAIL ALIGNMENT AND DESIGN. Engineering Manager Ash stated the Town received a Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program grant in the amount of $337,000 to fund the design and environmental assessment work needed to extend the Fall River Trail to Rocky Mountain National Park. The grant application specified the trail would provide expanded access by constructing pedestrian and bicycle enhancements adjacent to Hwy 34. Staff has confirmed FTA would be receptive to alternative routes if supported by the categorical exclusion environmental evaluation. Scott Belonger/Loris and Associates reviewed the two alternative trail alignments for the westerly 1.5 miles of the trail: 1) following south edge of Fall River Road and terminating at the Fall River Visitor Center; and 2) south side of Fish Hatchery Road and a gravel service road terminating at the Rocky Mountain National Park boundary near the Aspen Glen campground. The trail alignments would stay within the current rights-of-way. Both alternatives have been presented in three public outreach meetings. The two alignments were assessed using a matrix with six evaluation criteria: safety, user experience, environmental impact, resident/privacy concerns, connectivity/efficiency and cost. Trails are built with three types of construction – Type I – easy to construct and adequate spacing between the trail and the roadway; Type 2- moderate to construct and reduced spacing between the trail and roadway; and Type 3 – difficult to construction with little to no spacing between the trail and roadway. The Fall River Road alignment would require a significant portion of the trail to be built attached to the roadway, Type III, with no separation and walls to deal with the slope, at a cost of $1,000 a foot or $4.3 million. The Fish Hatchery Road would contain little to no Type III construction and would be significantly less expensive to construct at approximately $1.6 million. The Fish Hatchery Road alignment would be a safer corridor for pedestrians and bicycles providing a better user experience. Public comment was collected during the public meetings and concern was raised by property owners along Fish Hatchery Road over privacy and by accommodation owners over the removal of trees along the trail corridor. Staff stated snowplowing could be an issue for the Fall River Road alignment. Town Board comments and questions were heard and have been summarized: concern was raised regarding the Fish Hatchery alignment as the Town does not know Town Board Study Session – August 25, 2015 – Page 2 the future for the property south of the hydro plant; questioned if the Park had a preference on the alignment; and had the Land Trust been contacted to determine their preference. Staff stated the Fish Hatchery alignment would not impact the future development of the Town owned property. The Park would favor a connection to the campground to improve the visitor experience. The Land Trust had not been contacted. The project once fully designed would be a shovel ready project that would compete favorably for GOCO grant funds and Open Land funds, with the 1A sales tax funds to be used for grant matching. The Board consensus was to move forward with the final design of the trail along Fish Hatchery Road. REVIEW OF DRAFT RECOMMENDATION FOR VACATION RENTALS. Planner Kleisler provided an update on the project to review the regulations for vacation home rentals. The Town hosted a public forum in May to hear from the community, over 90 attended. Staff has worked to refine the public policy options and presented items for the Board’s review and comment. With Board comments, staff would hold a second public forum on September 11, 2015 to receive input from the community. Fee Structure The Town Clerk’s office conducted a fee structure analysis and recommended a tiered fee structure, both within Town and the Estes Valley. The analysis included a review of the CAST report and specific benchmarking against Steamboat Springs and Breckenridge, who has a high license compliance rate. The base fee of $150 would include the first bedroom and a $50 fee per each additional bedroom would be collected. A homeowner renting out a single room such as an AirBnB would have a fee of $50. The fee would cover administrative costs and code compliance. A Code Compliance Officer would be hired seasonally to address increased code compliance issues during the summer season. Board comments: Questioned if the County Commissioners were on board with the new fee structure. All costs related to vacation homes need to be reviewed to ensure the costs are recouped through the licensing process, i.e. Police services. Occupancy A common theme in the public forum was to preserve residential neighborhood character, yet another popular (yet competing) concept was increasing the occupancy limit in rentals. In an attempt to achieve a balanced approach, staff recommends the Trustees consider requiring a Conditional Use Permit when the occupancy is above the current limit of eight (8) people. This concept would allow the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) to review and neighbors to comment on some rental operations, while still allowing potentially rental to larger parties. Staff also reviewed the possibility of utilizing lot size to allow more occupancy. Board comments: The Board consensus was to not move forward with the lot size to determine occupancy; questioned the criteria to be used by the EVPC in determining the approval or denial of a Conditional Use Permit; the permit would be a good option as long as clear criteria can be developed; Trustee Holcomb would support 2 people per bedroom, plus 2 with no limit (Trustee Nelson and Mayor Pro Tem Koenig agreed); a level playing field has been the objective while protecting the neighborhoods and addressing items such as the fire code; a clear definition of residential versus commercial use should be developed; there are homes that can accommodate larger family reunions that are not being utilized due to the limit and the parties must utilize the YMCA or not come to Estes Park; the family character of Estes Park should be considered; requested staff provide information on what qualifies as a small hotel and what triggers a Fire Marshal review of a use; and the Board discussed what should the upper limit be and when should a Special Review be initiated. Town Board Study Session – August 25, 2015 – Page 3 Staff questioned having no limit on occupancy and questioned when a home becomes a hotel in a residential neighborhood. The Board could set a cap on the number of people. Residential Character Concerns were expressed during the public forum about the need to ensure vacation rentals do not erode residential neighborhood character. Some communities have limited the number of rentals in a given area. In Durango only one vacation rental may be permitted on a street segment, and additional homes that wish to operate on that street must obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommended establishing a limit on the number of vacation rentals per street segment or within a given radius, with additional rentals within that area requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permits have similar review standards to that of a Special Review. Attorney White stated any new regulations on the number of vacation homes would affect new licenses. Currently licensed homes would be grandfathered. AirBnB Option The website www.AirBnb.com has risen in popularity over the years in part by facilitating the rental of single rooms on a short-term basis while the owner remains in the house. The current regulations prohibit this use, which has created a small underground market. Staff recommended the use be permitted in smaller homes, in essence creating a “mini-bed and breakfast” use. There would be less concern with these rentals as the owner would be onsite. Board comments: no concerns with a single room in a dwelling; questioned how allowing these units would affect the accessory dwelling unit discussion; and should be regulated to be fair to the B&Bs in town. Notices Another popular theme during the public forum was better communication with neighboring properties. Staff recommended establishing some level of communication through mailings and a Town-maintained webmap. Concern has been raised by the property owners and the Police department that the use of a webmap may advertise the possibility of a vacant home. The notification would be a 5 home radius around the vacation rental delivered by the property owner, local contact or property manager. Additional information would be posted within the home such as the business license. The Board commented the use of property manager as a term continues to be confusing and would suggest the use of local contact. AUDIT COMMITTEE STRUCTURE. The Audit Committee was formed by the adoption of Policy Directive 01-03 which provided the Mayor the authority to appoint two representatives from the Town Board, Finance Officer, Assistant Town Administrator and Town Administrator to the committee. The Town’s auditors and the Audit Committee agreed the committee structure should be updated to remove staff from the committee, as the audit process is to audit staff for compliance with established regulations and procedures. Staff would recommend the removal of staff as voting members on the committee, add a third Board member, change the committee to a Standing Committee, and clarify terms for members as two-years. Meetings would be held in the Board Room as needed, recorded and official minutes posted on the Town’s website. The Board requested the item be brought forward for consideration at an upcoming Town Board meeting. TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. The Board requested staff bring forward a review of Town Board salaries to the budget meetings in October. Any potential increase would need to be approved prior to the April Municipal Election and would only apply to newly elected Board members. Town Board Study Session – August 25, 2015 – Page 4 Administrator Lancaster stated staff has been working with Visit Estes Park on a service level agreement. Through the review it was determined the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and Visit Estes Park should be reviewed. Administrator Lancaster, Trustee Liaison Norris and Mayor Pro Tem Koenig would meet with Visit Estes Park staff and Board members to discuss the agreement. Administrator Lancaster commented the Town would move ahead with the Housing Authority to review options for the Fish Hatchery property located on the eastern portion of the property. The concept would include a development with a private developer to place workforce housing on the property consisting of single-family deed restricted homes. The Town would request three houses be reserved for Town employees. Staff discussions with CDOT regarding the replacement of the banner at highway 34/36 intersection with a variable sign have been positive. The cost of a new sign could be paid for with the proceeds from the selling the property located on Old Ranger Road. Mayor Pinkham commented the Town continues to have difficulty in attracting applicants for the Park Advisory Board. In the past qualified individuals were not appointed, and therefore, individuals are not applying for the position. Mayor Pinkham stated there is a procedure for interviews and all candidates should be treated equal. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. The Board requested the final review of 2016 Strategic Plan for September 8, 2015. Trustee Ericson requested an update on the status of the Event Center financing at the September 8, 2015 meeting. The Board approved the process for interviewing for Boards and Commissions be added to the list of items to be scheduled. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk 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.