Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2024-11-12November 12, 2024 4:45 p.m. – 6:45 p.m. Board Room 4:30 p.m. Dinner ACCESSING MEETING TRANSLATIONS (Accediendo a las Traducciones de la Reunión) To access written translation during the meeting, please scan the QR Code or click this link for up to 48 other languages (Para acceder a la traducción durante la reunión, par favor escanee el código QR o haga clic en el enlace para hasta 48 idiomas más): https://attend.wordly.ai/join/FLUL-1105 Choose Language and Click Attend (Seleccione su lenguaje y haga clic en asistir) Use a headset on your phone for audio or read the transcript can assist those having difficulty hearing (Use un auricular en su teléfono para audio o lea la transcripción puede ayudar a aquellos que tienen dificultades para escuchar). Public comment is not typically heard at Study Sessions, but may be allowed by the Mayor with agreement of a majority of the Board. This study session will be streamed live and available at www.estes.org/videos 4:45 p.m. Annexation Overview. (Director Carrecia) 5:15 p.m. Utility Rates for Service Areas Outside of Town. (Director Bergsten) 5:45 p.m. Hosted Short-Term Rentals. (Town Clerk Williamson) 6:35 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items. (Board Discussion) 6:40 p.m. Comments & Questions. 6:45 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting. Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 4:15 p.m. AGENDA TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION       COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report To: Honorable Mayor Hall Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director Date: November 12, 2024 RE: Annexation Process and Policy Overview Purpose of Study Session Item: The purpose of this study session is two-fold: • Provide the Town Board with a high-level overview of the annexation process • Seek preliminary direction from the Town Board on provisions to consider within a proposed annexation policy with Larimer County Town Board Direction Requested: Provide staff with preliminary direction on provisions to include within a proposed annexation policy with Larimer County, with further direction to be sought at future study sessions. Present Situation: As a statutory town, the town of Estes Park derives its annexation authority from State Statute, specifically Title 31, Article 12, Part 1 – Municipal Annexation Act of 1965. At a high level, the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3 Future Land Uses addresses the annexation and provision of municipal services to areas outside Town limits. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the Town and County establish an annexation policy that would help guide where the Town’s limits and service areas could expand. An integral part of this effort would be the creation of a Future Town Service Area that would identify areas the Town could provide service over the next 20 years. Properties within this designated service area would be likely candidates for annexation. Annexation can occur for several reasons. For property owners, they may be seeking municipal services, such as potable water or enhanced public safety. Or the property owners may be seeking to develop under the Town’s development standards and codes instead of the County’s regulations. For municipalities, they may support annexation to better control growth and development patterns or where the extension of utility services is most efficient. Typically, with few exceptions, annexations must be requested by the property owners within the area proposed for annexation. Annexations may be processed by either petition or election. With a petition annexation, more than 50% of the landowners owning more than 50% of the area to be annexed may petition for annexation. With an election annexation, the petition must be signed by at least 75 registered electors or 10% of the registered electors within the annexation area, whichever is less. However, an affirmative election outcome only means the property is eligible for annexation. As with both processes, the ultimate decision to annex an area rests with the governing body (Town Board). The petition annexation process, which is the process most used in Estes Park, requires at least three actions by the Town Board – two via resolution and one via ordinance. The first action is the adoption of a resolution finding that the annexation petition is compliant with State Statute. The second action is the adoption of a resolution finding that the proposed annexation is also compliant. The final action is the adoption of an ordinance to formally annex the property. Within 90 days of annexation, an ordinance to establish zoning for the property must be approved. For an unincorporated property to be eligible for annexation, it must be contiguous to the annexing municipality for at least 1/6 of the perimeter of the area proposed for annexation. Though, contiguity is not affected by the presence of rights-of-way, waterways, or public lands, and a municipality may annex across these lands and features. The review of an annexation will involve most Town departments, outside special districts, public review, and final decision by the Town Board. It should be noted that annexations are legislative actions, and not quasi-judicial in nature. Proposal: Prior to consideration of an annexation policy, staff would like to understand the Town Board’s philosophy, objectives, and direction regarding annexation. Some questions to consider are presented below. Though, final direction concerning these questions is not necessarily needed at this study session, as staff plans to have follow-up sessions with the Town Board, so as to fully explore these questions: • Is there a desire to annex unincorporated areas and increase the Town’s limits and service areas? • What geographic areas should the Town consider for annexation? Conversely, what areas should the Town not consider for annexation? • Should the Town seek to initiate annexation of unincorporated enclaves or peninsulas? • Should the Town continue to offer extraterritorial municipal services without a strict requirement to annex? Or should the provision of municipal services be contingent upon annexation, or an agreement to an annex in the future, if annexation is not currently available? • Should there be a designated Growth Boundary or Future Town Service Area, with annexations encouraged and supported within these areas? • If there is a desire to annex, under what circumstances or conditions should annexation be considered? A list of potential circumstances/conditions could include: o Desire to provide municipal services to underserved areas o Potential growth of tax base or other revenues o Potential costs to serve the annexed area (i.e. street maintenance, utilities, public safety) o Support of housing, preservation, economic development, or other Town- identified objectives o Increased representation from residents o Ability to control development through implementation of the Town’s standards and regulations o Ability to guide growth and development • To what extent should property owners be responsible for the costs of annexation and identified financial impacts to the Town? • Should the Town consider annexations if there are dissenting property owners? Or should the Town only consider annexations with 100% property owner support? • Should the Town continue to consider a formal annexation policy with Larimer County? Or should the Town continue its ad hoc approach to annexation? A formal annexation policy could provide greater clarity and consistency for staff, property owners, elected officials, and the public when considering and evaluating potential annexations. However, given that the number of requested annexations has historically been low, an ad hoc approach is not necessarily a vastly inferior alternative compared to a formal annexation policy. • Other questions or topics that staff should consider? The questions and topics presented above are intended to generate discussion on how the Town should approach annexation requests and what should be included within a potential annexation policy. It is anticipated that one or more additional study sessions will be conducted prior to formulating a draft policy for Town Board consideration. Advantages: The creation of an annexation policy with Larimer County is a component of both the 2024 and 2025 Strategic Plans. Such a policy would help provide consistency and clarity for those involved in the annexation process. Disadvantages: The creation of an annexation policy will require significant staff time from both Town and County personnel. Finance/Resource Impact: Creation of an annexation policy is established within the Strategic Plan, with staff time resourced from the base budget. For future annexation requests, an evaluation of potential budgetary impacts will need to occur with each request. Level of Public Interest: It is anticipated that the consideration of an annexation policy will generate a moderate level of public interest. Attachments: 1. Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan, Annexation and Future Town Service Areas 2. Incorporated Areas Map ANNEXATION AND FUTURE TOWN SERVICE AREAS Comprehensive planning and growth management in the Estes Valley imply coordination and cooperation between the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County. A key imperative of this plan is that the Town and County FRQWLQXH WR FROODERUDWH RQ GHͤQLQJ D )XWXUH 7RZQ Service Area and corresponding Annexation Policy. The Town and the County are encouraged to work together to identify areas of shared development impact in anticipation of where the Town will grow (and not grow). $)XWXUH7RZQ6HUYLFH$UHDZRXOGGHͤQHDERXQGDU\ beyond existing Town limits to indicate an area(s) where higher intensity and density is acceptable over the next 20 years and to plan for municipal service provision. The area would not necessarily need to be served exclusively by the municipality for all services, but the designated area should be serviceable by an existing urban service provider. A Future Town Service Area would establish a coordinated partnership for managing long-range growth WKDWUHͥHFWVWKHFRPPXQLW\̵VYDOXHVDQGPDUNHWUHDOLWLHV to provide predictability and consistency. The Future Town Service Area should be supported by DQ $QQH[DWLRQ 3ROLF\ WKDW VSHFLͤHV FULWHULD IRU IXWXUH development, infrastructure, and public services, mutually agreed upon by the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County. If the development criteria are met, the Town would annex areas within the Future Service Area and provide the full range of public services. Concentrating redevelopment within and adjacent to the H[LVWLQJWRZQERXQGDULHVVXSSRUWVHͦFLHQWPXQLFLSDO services, infrastructure maintenance, and conservation of natural areas. This approach is intended to strengthen the connection between more urban land use and eventual annexation by the Town by prioritizing growth areas and limiting development in areas of critical natural habitat and resources. It also continues an expectation that the Town, not the County, will provide the full range of services necessary to support a quality urban environment. 78 CHAPTER 3: FUTURE LAND USE ATTACHMENT 1 Incorporated Areas Estes Park ATTACHMENT 2 11/13/2024 1 Community Development Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees November 12, 2024 Annexation Process and Policy Overview • Provide high-level overview of annexation process • Seek preliminary direction on annexation policy • Initial discussion • Additional study sessions to be scheduled Purpose 1 2 11/13/2024 2 • Colorado State Statute provides annexation authority • Comprehensive Plan Annexation Policy Future Town Service Area • Annexation requests Property owners initiate Petition or election Contiguity with municipality (1/6) Town Board approval Present Situation Proposal • Consideration of annexation policy • Seeking Town Board direction • Items for consideration to follow • Initial discussion • Further discussion to help clarify policy considerations 3 4 11/13/2024 3 Items for Consideration • Is there a desire to annex unincorporated areas and increase the Town’s limits and service areas? • What geographic areas should the Town consider for annexation? Conversely, what areas should the Town not consider for annexation? • Should the Town seek to initiate annexation of unincorporated enclaves or peninsulas? • Should the Town continue to offer extraterritorial municipal services without a strict requirement to annex? Or should the provision of municipal services be contingent upon annexation, or an agreement to an annex in the future, if annexation is not currently available? • Should there be a designated Growth Boundary or Future Town Service Area, with annexations encouraged and supported within these areas? Items for Consideration Under what circumstances or conditions should annexation be considered? A list of potential circumstances/conditions could include: Desire to provide municipal services to underserved areas Potential growth of tax base or other revenues Potential costs to serve the annexed area (i.e. street maintenance, utilities, public safety) Support of housing, preservation, economic development, or other Town- identified objectives Increased representation from residents Ability to control development through implementation of the Town’s standards and regulations Ability to guide growth and development 5 6 11/13/2024 4 Items for Consideration • To what extent should property owners be responsible for the costs of annexation and identified financial impacts to the Town? • Should the Town consider annexations if there are dissenting property owners? Or should the Town only consider annexations with 100% property owner support? • Should the Town continue to consider a formal annexation policy with Larimer County? Or should the Town continue its ad hoc approach to annexation? A formal annexation policy could provide greater clarity and consistency for staff, property owners, elected officials, and the public when considering and evaluating potential annexations. However, given that the number of requested annexations has historically been low, an ad hoc approach is not necessarily a vastly inferior alternative compared to a formal annexation policy. • Other questions or topics that staff should consider? • 2024/2025 Strategic Plan • Greater consistency & clarity for those involved in process Advantages Disadvantages • Significant staff time to create policy 7 8 11/13/2024 5 • Seeking direction from Town Board • First session to start discussion • Future sessions to be conducted • Any initial direction? • What can staff provide for future study sessions? Direction Requested 9 10 11/13/2024 6 Lot A = 1 Acre Lot B = 1 Acre Lot C = 2 Acres Total Annexation Area = 4 Acres 11 TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION November 12, 2024 Utility Rates for Service Areas Outside of Town No packet material was provided for this item. TOWN CLERK’S OFFICE MEMO To: Mayor Hall Town Board of Trustees Through: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: November 12, 2024 RE: Hosted Short-Term Rentals Purpose of Study Session Item: Continue the discussion the Town Board began at their August 27, 2024 study session to define hosted short-term rentals/vacation homes and to review options as they relate to enforcement, advantages, and disadvantages. and how to address currently licensed B&Bs as a hosted short-term rental or if they do not meet the new B&B regulations by January 1, 2026. Town Board Direction Requested: Staff requests the Board provide guidance on the following: - How to define the hosted short-term rental use? - Should hosted short-term rental use be expanded to be a standalone category? (Option 1) - Should the current vacation home definition be updated to remove the prohibition on residency within a vacation home? (Option 2) - Should there be no change to the current vacation home regulations? (Option 3) - How should the currently licensed B&Bs be addressed if they are going to be considered a hosted short-term rental? Present Situation: Staff presented research gathered from 25 municipalities on the use of hosted vacation homes and found 6 allowed some form of hosted short-term rental use. Staff also found that two (2) counties, Larimer and Summit, allow the use. The communities have varying methods for defining the use such as owner or other permanent resident residing and present, owner occupied, host continuously resides, full time resident resides, owners’ primary home, and primary residence or a member of the workforce. The August 27, 2024 Board discussion coalesced around three main options: Option 1 – a new, separate category, Option 2 – removing the prohibition on residency in a vacation home, and Option 3 - no action. The Board further discussed the need to determine how the current nonconforming B&B properties would be addressed on a case-by-case basis if the Board moved forward with a hosted option. Proposal: Staff has reviewed the three options outlined above and will provide a presentation to review significant issues, variations, advantages and disadvantages, enforcement concerns, and recommendations. Advantages: • Allowing a third category may address concerns raised on the affordability of homeownership in Estes Park by allowing the rental of a room or a portion of the home to offset an individual’s mortgage. • May provide current B&B owners that do not or cannot meet the new B&B regulations a viable option for continued operation without coming into compliance with the regulations adopted through Ordinance 11-24. Disadvantages: • May expand the number of short-term rental units and negatively impact other accommodation businesses and/or the local neighborhood character. • Regulations would need to be developed to ensure the homes are truly “hosted” short-term rentals and not a vacation home if Option 1 is considered. • The workforce housing regulatory linkage fee may be impacted pending further discussion and regulations developed. • A third category of short-term rentals would increase code enforcement and may be impossible to enforce with Option 1. Finance/Resource Impact: Staff time depending on the direction received by the Board. Level of Public Interest Medium for those interested in operating and for those impacted by a third category such as homeowners, other accommodation owners, and future homeowners. Attachment(s) None Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> October 12 2024 - Hosted STR agenda item - Mayor/Trustee study session 2 messages Herbert Sampson <sampfirm@radiks.net>Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 12:35 PM To: townclerk@estes.org, ghall@estes.org, mcenac@estes.org, bbrown@estes.org, khazelton@estes.org, migel@estes.org, franklancaster@estes.org, cyounglund@estes.org The the Clerk and Board, Attached you shall find my detailed analysis of the so called Hosted Short-Term Rental agenda item. My position is that it should not be considered by the Board or placed on any regular meeting agenda for at least two years. Please consider this as public comment. Best Regards, -- Herbert Sampson 633 Park River Pl Estes Park, CO 80517 402-689-5130 2 attachments Town of Estes Park Hosted STR Analysis.pdf 115K sampfirm.vcf 1K Gary Hall <ghall@estes.org>Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 2:28 PM To: Herbert Sampson <sampfirm@radiks.net>, Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Thank you, Mr. Sampson. I'll read and consider all points. I'll forward your note to the Town Admin, also. Much appreciated. Gary M. Hall Mayor of the Town of Estes Park Office phone: 970-577-3706 Email: ghall@estes.org [Quoted text hidden] PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED by Noon 2024-11-12 Town of Estes Park – Hosted STR Analysis The Trustees should avoid placing any discussion of so called “Hosted Short -Term Rentals” or amending the ordinance governing STRs and B&Bs on its regular meeting agenda. I am neither in favor or opposed in principle to so called “Hosted Short-Term Rental”. That is, an amendment to the STR and B&B ordinance so as to permit owner occupation of the dwelling during the transient lodging without providing meals. But the Trustees should postpone any discussion of Hosted Short-Term Rental for at least two years for four reasons: 1. The Board just got done with amending the B&B ordinance in July. A Hosted STR is just a B&B without the “B” for Breakfast. So, let’s see how the current ordinance works out before the Trustees even consider amending it again. 2. There was no omission from the current STR/B&B ordinance for Hosted STRs. 3. The push for an amended ordinance is really about taxation, and the status of owners as “resident” so as to avoid being categorized as commercial property under proposed state legislation. The town would get ahead of itself to amend the ordinance before it knows the final state tax resolution and language. 4. Reopening the negotiations to negate the current STR/B&B ordinance so as to grant an STR the ability to run a B&B, puts the entire system on the table, including the existence of STRs in areas zoned residential. THE CURRENT B&B HISTORY The current ordinance was adopted in December 2022 and the B&B amended and restated by Ordinance 11-24 adopted July 9, 2024. It is not an old piece of legislation. And the version the town now lives under was subject to very contentious input – that is an understatement. The ordinance is the product of compromise and the explicit provisions surrounding owner occupancy and meals are included as part of that compromise. Owner occupancy of STRs was prohibited on purpose. Owner occupancy of B&Bs, and meals, was made mandatory on purpose. So, EP has a two-tiered system. One that requires that an owner reside and be available to oversee the activity of the guests (B&B) and one that requires the owner to be out the house when the customers are in possession (STR). To accomplish this two-tier system that accommodates both owner occupied and unoccupied dwellings the ordinance adopted blunt language: “5.20.110 - Additional provisions for vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns. (e) Operating requirements. (8) Number of parties. a. Vacation homes in residential zone districts as those districts are defined in Subsection (b) above shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more than one (1) party at a time, occupying the vacation home as a single group. Owners of the vacation home shall not occupy the vacation home while a party is present. All occupants shall be registered by name on or before the time of the party's initial occupancy. The name registry shall be maintained by the local representative, and shall be made available to the Town or any other appropriate regulatory entity upon request. b. Bed and breakfast inns may be rented, leased or furnished to one (1) or more parties. (16) Additional operating requirements for bed and breakfast inns. a. The innkeeper of a bed and breakfast inn must reside on the premises when the bed and breakfast inn is in operation. b. The innkeeper must actually reside on the bed and breakfast inn premises at least nine (9) months of the year. c. To reside on the premises for the purposes of this paragraph (16) means to reside in the same dwelling unit, as defined in the Estes Park Development Code, as the bed and breakfast inn. The innkeeper must not reside in a space that qualifies as a dwelling unit distinguishable from the dwelling unit constituting the bed and breakfast inn.” THERE WAS NO OMISSION The purported reason for a change in STR occupancy is that there is an omission in the current ordinance, a legislative oversight. That is not true as can be seen from the foregoing language of the ordinances themselves. That type of language does not just appear in an ordinance by accident. To the contrary, these provisions were crafted to comport the B&B establishments to the state definition of a B&B under the tax code, and at the same time stop STR owners from unfairly competing with B&Bs by running de facto B&Bs, but without the regulatory and tax consequences. THE STATE REAL PROPERTY TAX HISTORY Originally, I thought this proposal was about enabling owners to convert garages and basements to rental units, or have a nominal presence in the dwelling (e.g. hostel), or simply remove the requirement for meals. Actually, this is about taxation. During the 2024 General Assembly a bill was introduced that would require that STRs be recognized, appraised and taxed as commercial property (SB24-033). EVSTRA and A coalition of vacation rental owners and their support businesses opposed this bill, but a lso recognized that there is a state constitutional provision that will ultimately force the recognition of the true nature of STR properties as lodging for hire – commercial property. In an attempt to mollify opposition, there was a provision embedded in the bill that would carve out an exception for rental of a “Primary Residence”. This was done by defining the term “Short-Term Rental Unit” and explicitly exempting a “Primary Residence ” from the definition of an STR, and thus the requirement to categorize the property as commercial, and tax it as such. Moreover, the bill also provided that the only method of valuation for STRs, as commercial property, would be the Market Approach – or Fair Market Value, not the Income Approach. The STRs fought this because it would constrict their ability to manipulate t he tax value by limiting the net income using accounting and by artificially limiting the gross income received by just controlling how many days they rented the property. The tax bill for an STR utilizing the income approach can be reduced dramatically ut ilizing these components because math is pretty simple. The Bill died in committee, but the momentum to recognize the true nature of STR properties as commercial lodging continues because: 1.STRs are real businesses in fact and in law. Owners treat their STRs as a commercial enterprise and deduct their tax expense from their gross income. 2. Colo. Const. Art. X, Section 3(1)(a) arguably requires that property actually used for commercial lodging purposes be recognized and taxed as such. EFFECT OF REMOVING THE NO OWNER OCCUPANCY STR REQUIREMENT AND THE MEAL REQUIREMENT The adoption of “Hosted STR” removes a property from the B&B class by definition, and would thus occupy a new tax sweet spot. If the “Hosted STR” is adopted by removal of the requirement of a prepared meal from the B&B ordinance, then the B&B will no longer tax be defined as commercial lodging. If the Hosted STR would allow the Owner of an STR to occupy the dwelling during the transient occupation, but with no meal requirement, then it too avoids categorization as commercial under current law and proposed legislation. Bed and Breakfasts are now valued and taxed as commercial property C.R.S. 39-1-102 (2.5) “Bed and breakfast” means an overnight lodging establishment, whether owned by a natural person or any legal entity, that is a residential dwelling unit or an appurtenance thereto, in which the innkeeper resides, or that is a building designed but not necessarily occupied as a single - family residence that is next to, or directly across the street from, the innkeeper’s residence, and in either circumstance, in which: (a) Lodging accommodations are provided for a fee; (b) At least one meal per day is provided at no charge other than the fee for the lodging accommodations; and (c) There are not more than thirteen sleeping rooms available for transient guests. C.R.S. 39-1-104. Valuation for assessment - definitions C.R.S. 39-1-104 1.6) (a) Hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, and personal property located at a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast are classified as lodging property, which is a subclass of nonresidential property for purposes of the valuation for assessment. Classification as a lodging property does not affect a partial allocation as residential real property if a lodging property is a mixed-use property. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR I submit that the system is neither broken, nor in need of amendment. Proponents of Hosted STR now wish to renegotiate the very recent deal adopted in July of this year. But if those who propose the Hosted STR want to reopen the negotiations to essentially negate the current B&B ordinance so as to grant an STR the ability to run a B&B, but without breakfast, then everything is on the table. There are many actual residents of the town that would like to see: 1. No transfer of license on sale 2. Strict limitation on STR occupancy to ensure fire prevention, neighborhood disruption, and public safety 3. Limit STR license to areas zoned commercial, or expressly for transient lodging 4. Sunset on licenses in areas zoned residential 5. Express recognition by STR owner upon application that the use is lodging property, a commercial use 6. Require owner to host and reside on the property (not agent/employee) or adjacent 7. Prohibit converting porches, garages and basements into sleeping areas. Prohibit constructing attached and unattached sleeping quarters, casitas, and accessory dwellings HOSTING IN NOT A BAD THING Hosted lodging has benefits for the community and the owners. 1. Having the owner on the place prevents guest misbehavior and disruptive activity in the neighborhood. 2. Hosted lodging coupled with a 9-month bona fide residency requirement assures that local residents benefit from providing vacation lodging. The Town of Estes Park currently provides for hosted lodging. The current ordinance comports to state law on B&Bs. The system is working and the rules are known. It is an error (and a waste of Trustee time) to discuss amending the ordinances until the current changes can be assessed in action for at least two seasons; and, the state push to tax short-term rent as commercial property is ultimately resolved. Herbert “Fritz” Sampson 633 Park River Place, Estes Park CO. 11/13/2024 1 1 Hosted Short-Term Rentals November 12, 2024 Hosted Short-Term Rentals November 12, 2024 2 Approval of Ordinance 11-24 bed and breakfast regulations on July 9, 2024. Current bed and breakfast licenses to be compliant with new regulations by January 1, 2026 Town Board requested a review of a new rental category - Hosted Short-term Rental -1st discussion at study session August 27, 2024 Why Are We Here? 1 2 11/13/2024 2 3 Analysis and Enforcement of the following: - Separate hosted category - Remove owner occupancy prohibition in current code - No change - Address existing B&B on a case-by-case basis Outcome of August 27, 2024 Study Session 4 -Hosted Short Term Rental – Define “Resident” (Owner Occupied/Host/Innkeeper -Present Options & Regulatory Issues -Option 1: New, Separate Category -Option 2: Remove Prohibition on Residency in Vacation Homes -Option 3: No Action -Licensed Bed & Breakfast prior to Ordinance 11-24 -Board Discussion Objective 3 4 11/13/2024 3 Types of Short Term Rentals https://www.chalt.org/short-term-rentals/ Hosted Short-Term Rental Definitions What does it mean to be “hosted”? Fort Collins -Primary Short-term Rental is a dwelling unit that is the owners primary home and a portion of the home is leased to one party at a time Glenwood Springs - Accessory Tourist Rental regulations allow a homeowner to rent a single bedroom in their home to paying guests for stays of less than 30 consecutive days Larimer County -Hosted Short-Term Rental is a principal dwelling occupied by a full-time resident (owner or operator) living on-site where short-term lodging is provided to transient guests Steamboat -Hosted Short-Term Rental is required for anyone renting out a single guestroom for short-term accommodations within their primary residence 5 6 11/13/2024 4 7 Estes Park Municipal Code - Vacation Home Section 5.20.110(e)(8)a Additional Provisions Number of parties: Vacation homes in residential zone districts as those districts are defined in Subsection (b) above shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more than one (1) party at a time, occupying the vacation home as a single group. Owners of the vacation home shall not occupy the vacation home while a party is present. Option 1: Separate Hosted Vacation Home Category The new category will allow the “resident” to occupy a portion of the home while a portion of the home is rented out nightly to one (1) party Advantages compared to Option 2: • Hosted vacation homes may have less adverse impact on the neighborhood depending on the definition of “resident”, compared to current definition of vacation homes (unhosted) • Hosted vacation homes may include long-term housing for the “resident” • May be exempted from the workforce housing regulatory linkage fee 7 8 11/13/2024 5 Option 1: Separate Hosted Vacation Home Category, continued Cap for residentially zoned properties: Option 1 Develop a separate cap from the current residential cap Option 2 Fit properties into existing vacation home residential cap through attrition Option 1: Separate Hosted Vacation Home Category, continued Significant Issues: • May create an incentive to identify as hosted rather than unhosted based on cap and fees • Staff (Town Clerk’s Office/Code Enforcement) does not have the resources to verify the individual listed as the “resident” is actually living on the premises and present during the short term rental • Residency is challenging to enforce, especially without a budget to hire a contractor to monitor compliance • Without a clear enforcement mechanism to ensure the “resident” claiming to live at a vacation home actually does, staff cannot recommend this option 9 10 11/13/2024 6 Option 1: Separate Hosted Vacation Home Category Pros: • Allow the “resident” to occupy a portion of the home while a portion of the home is rented out nightly to one (1) party Cons: •Enforcement to ensure the property is hosted •Incentive to become hosted if the linkage fee or cap does not apply •May encourage the development of non-permitted uses in single- family zoning districts Option 2: Remove Prohibition on Residency This option would remove the current language in the Municipal Code that does not allow the “owners” to occupy the home while it is being rented. Advantages compared to Option 1: • Simplicity • No new caps, categories, or fee changes • No new monitoring or enforcement of residency • The dwelling unit would not need to change categories if a “resident” is not present or if they move out. 11 12 11/13/2024 7 Option 2: Remove Prohibition on Residency, continued Disadvantage compared to Option 1: • The workforce housing regulatory linkage fee would still be applicable for a vacation home occupied by a “resident” • The homeowner would have the flexibility to have the home “hosted” or “unhosted” at any time • The dwelling unit would maintain its ability to operate as a business with no one living in it, as considered in the fee study Option 2: Remove Prohibition on Residency Pros: •Flexibility to rent the entire home or a portion of the home throughout the year •No restriction on a “resident” occupying the home during a short term rental •Workforce housing regulatory linkage fee applicable whether hosted or not •No incentive to become a hosted rental to avoid linkage fee •Could be included in the current residential cap, no separate cap needed •Enforcement of occupancy status not an issue Cons: •May encourage the development of non-permitted uses in single-family zoning districts 13 14 11/13/2024 8 Option 3: No Change The current definition would remain and require: …Owners of the vacation home shall not occupy the vacation home while a party is present. Advantages Compared to Options 1 & 2: • Status quo • No new caps, categories, or fee changes • No new monitoring or enforcement of residency Disadvantage Compared to Option 1 & 2: •Impact on B&Bs licensed prior to Ordinance 11-24 must come into compliance with new B&B regulations by January 1, 2026 or stop operating Licensed Bed & Breakfast Prior to Ordinance 11-24 Regulatory considerations if the Board allows hosted vacation homes and currently licensed B&Bs convert: • Require life safety inspection in addition to a compliance inspection as required for all new vacation homes and B&Bs • Prior to Ordinance 11-24 in July, a life safety inspection was not required for B&Bs and not performed on current B&Bs • The compliance inspection ensures compliance with the municipal and development codes • Ensures a hosted vacation home is a single dwelling unit, and does not include an accessory dwelling unit (which is prohibited for vacation homes and B&Bs) or other nonconforming uses (e.g. duplex, second kitchen, etc.) •New license would not be transferable to a new property owner 15 16 11/13/2024 9 Licensed Bed & Breakfast Prior to Ordinance 11-24, continued Pros: •Provides current B&Bs an additional licensing option without coming into compliance with the Ordinance 11-24 Cons: •Residential cap would be exceeded through Option 2 •No movement on the current residential waitlist if the cap remains at 322 18 Regulatory Issues •How to determine “resident”? Allow long term lessee to act as host or require owner? •Continue to require a separate property manager be identified when not hosted? •Assumes host is acting as property manager when onsite only. •Separate cap for hosted properties? •Occupancy & parking limits? •Workforce housing regulatory linkage fee applicability? •Home occupations allowed? •Ancillary services allowed? 17 18 11/13/2024 10 19 Board Discussion •How to define “resident” for hosted short-term rental use •Preferred option: -Option 1: New, Separate Category (Not Recommended) -Option 2: Remove Prohibition on Residency in Vacation Homes -Option 3: No Action •Confirm regulatory issues for B&Bs licensed prior to Ordinance 11-24 19 November 26, 2024 •Purchasing: Project Delivery Tools •Paid Parking Season Overview and Future Funding for the Bighorn Parking Structure •Future Funding for the Bighorn Parking Structure December 10, 2024 •VEP Dark Skies Initiative •Multimodal Transportation and Transit Development Plans •Liquor License Process January 28, 2025 •Scoping Project for Capacity Improvements on the Big Thompson River and Fall River Items Approved – Unscheduled: •OHV/Golf Carts on Roads •Town Board Email Listing on Website •Parking Enforcement Ordinance Updates •Curb and Gutter Philosophy •Stanley Park Master Plan Implementation Items for Town Board Consideration: •Police Department Facility Financing •2025 Funding Proposal for Tuition Assistance •HB 24-1175: Local Government Rights to Property for Affordable Housing Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items November 12, 2024