HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board County Commissioners Study Session 2015-11-09
TOWN BOARD/ Monday, November 9, 2015
COUNTY COMMISSIONER 4:00 p.m.
STUDY SESSION Board Room
4:00 p.m. Vacation Home Policy Discussion.
“Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this
meeting at approximately 3:45 p.m.”
AGENDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham
Board of Trustees
Town Administrator Lancaster
From: Philip Kleisler, Planner II
Date: November 9, 2015
RE: Vacation Home Policy Discussion
Objective:
Review and obtain guidance on key issues.
Present Situation:
The so-called “sharing economy” continues to grow out of almost universal internet
usage. This has allowed the longstanding use in Estes Park, vacation home rentals, to
grow at an impressive rate. As with many mountain communities, Estes Park is
experiencing high demand for visitors that want to stay in homes during their vacation
as opposed to traditional hotel/motels. Earlier this year the Boards directed staff to
initiate a public process to amend regulations for vacation home rentals.
The table below outlines the major tasks and milestones associated with this project. A
substantial amount of public comments have been provided to the boards and staff.
Table 1. Project Timeline
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.
Phase Date Description
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.
Nov 9 Joint Town Board/County Commissioner Study Session to
review and comment on draft ordinance.
Nov 17
Tentative
Planning Commission public hearing.
Dec 8
Tentative
Town Board “first reading” to schedule public hearing and receive
public testimony. Adopts ordinance for fee schedule change.
December 21
Tentative
County Commissioners adopts fee schedule change.
Jan 12
Tentative
Town Board adopts ordinance package.
Jan 19
Tentative
County Commissioners adopts ordinance package.
Proposal:
Town staff has refined many of the initial policy options to reflect public input received
throughout the project up to this point. The attached draft ordinance seeks to strike a
balance between private property rights (namely, the desire to rent large homes on a
short-term basis) and residential neighborhood character. This section of the report
summarizes key issues for which staff seeks policy direction. Some other relatively
minor topics will be presented during the work session.
Key Issue #1: Should vacation homes with a higher occupancy be permitted in
residential zone districts?
Summary:
A common theme throughout this public process was to preserve residential
neighborhood character, yet another popular (yet competing) concept was
increasing the occupancy limit in rentals. Individual Trustees showed interest in
allowing larger vacation homes host parties great than eight (our current limit).
During the previous work session, Trustees questioned when a large vacation
home becomes similar to a small hotel. Currently, our zoning regulations classify
a short-term accommodations use with more than eight people as a commercial
accommodations use: either a Small Hotel or Resort Lodge/Cabin; these
commercial accommodations uses are not permitted in residential districts.
Vacation homes in residential zone districts are considered to be a residential
use as it relates to the Building Code. Commercial building code regulations
would be triggered if the design and the size of the building appears to function
as a commercial accommodations use, rather than a residential use (e.g. each
bedroom having outdoor access).
Advantage (public comments):
Accommodates the growing market demand for larger groups, such as family
reunions.
Allows property owners more flexibility by hosting larger parties.
Disadvantage (public comments):
Expands a non-residential use within residential zone districts.
Potential land use conflicts and loss of residential character.
Potential loss of long-term residential units.
Key Issue #2: Should a limit be set on the number of vacation homes within the
town and unincorporated valley?
Summary:
Staff and the Planning Commission received public comment about setting a limit
on the number of licenses. Permitted vacation homes in the Estes Valley have
increased roughly 25-30% in the past five years. Individual Trustees have
showed an interest in identifying ways to preserve residential neighborhood
character and the housing stock.
One policy question in determining any limit is: “how many housing units should
be permitted as a vacation home?” Table 2 lists options for the boards to
consider, should you wish to set a limit on the number of vacation homes. For
example, the 330 permitted vacation homes in the Estes Valley represent 4.7%
of Housing Units counted in the 2010 Census. Increasing the current license
count to 10% of Housing Units would allow the current pool of rentals to be
doubled (708). Twenty five percent (25%) of Housing Units would increase the
limit to 1,771.
Advantage (public comments):
A short-term rental market is a fast growing industry. Future boards may
reassess the community's direction if the cap is ever reached, allowing for a
“pause” if needed.
Incentivizes short-term license compliance.
Disadvantage (public comments):
“A more effective method may be to deny a license renewal for homes that
receive violations”.
It is an extra regulation when a moratorium could achieve the same end.
Table 2. Options for vacation home limit.
Town Licenses
Unincorporated
Valley Permits Total Source
Housing Units 4107 2975 7082
2010
Census
Vacation Home Licenses 182 148 330
Town
Clerk
VHRs as a % of Housing Units 4.4% 5.0% 4.7%
Vacation Home Options
5% of Housing Units 205 149 354
7% of Housing Units 287 208 496
10% of Housing Units 411 298 708
25% of Housing Units 1027 744 1771
Key Issue #3: Should there be a limit to the size or maximum occupancy of larger
vacation homes?
Summary:
The draft ordinance allows for these larger rentals through a new zoning use:
Vacation Home, High-Intensity. Two distinct types of vacation homes would be
defined as:
Vacation Home, Low-Intensity. A residential dwelling unit that is rented,
leased or occupied for accommodations purposes for compensation for
terms of less than thirty (30) days and intended to host parties of eight (8)
or less.
Vacation Home, High-Intensity. An accommodations establishment that is
rented, leased or occupied for accommodations purposes for
compensation for terms of less than thirty (30) days, intended to host
parties between nine (9) and eighteen (18) and no larger than ten
thousand (10,000) square feet.
Occupancy would be calculated as two (2) individuals per bedroom plus two (2)
individuals. Such rooms need to be legal bedrooms, meaning that each have
suitable means of egress (i.e. window).
Advantages of a Limit (public comments):
No public comments to this specific question.
Disadvantages (public comments):
No public comments to this specific question.
Key Issue #4: Should vacation homes with a higher occupancy be treated as a
commercial use in terms of building code and public facilities (fire, water and
sewer) requirements?
Summary:
Vacation homes are currently treated as a residential use as it relates to the
building code and public facilities. Because of this relatively few requirements
are triggered when this use is established.
Advantage (public comments):
Increases guest safety.
Provides a more level playing field with other commercial accommodations such
as small hotels.
Disadvantage (public comments):
Potential cost to property owner if building upgrades are required (e.g. sprinkler
system).
Key Issue #5: Where should vacation homes with a larger occupancy be
permitted?
Summary:
Throughout the review of similar communities (such as Steamboat Springs),
larger vacation homes are generally permitted in accommodations and rural
residential districts. The draft ordinance proposes that this use be permitted by
right in the Accommodations (A and A-1) and Commercial Downtown districts,
and as a Conditional Use in the RE-1, RE and E-1 rural residential districts.
In other words, this draft ordinance allows the Vacation Home, High-Intensity use
in residential zone districts that has a minimum lot size of at least one (1) acre.
Generally speaking, the intent of the RE-1, RE and E-1 districts is to promote
low-density single-family residential development. Vacation homes are currently
classified as a Low Intensity Accommodations use.
Staff would also like direction about if this use should be permitted in the E
Estate district. The minimum lot size in the E district is 0.5 acres. Almost half of
the 1,400 E Estate parcels in the Estes Valley are less than 0.5 acres.
The E Estate district represents roughly 5% of land in the Estes Valley. The
district was established to “encourage moderate density single-family uses in
areas of the Estes Valley convenient to services and the key highway
corridors…the district regulations are intended to continue the predominant
single-family detached use.”
Staff has identified this as a key issue because while some E Estate properties
appear well suited for these larger vacation home uses, others do not.
Attachment 3 is a map showing the E Estate locations both with the town limits
and the unincorporated valley. Many lots along Mary’s Lake Road (e.g. Middle
Broadview) may accommodate a Vacation Home, High-Intensity use with few
concerns from the neighborhood. However, many properties in the
neighborhoods surrounding the Estes Park Medical Center would be
inappropriate for such uses; this area is included as an inset in Attachment 3.
Advantage (public comments):
Increases options for guest accommodations, specifically for large groups.
Disadvantage (public comments):
Potential for land use conflicts.
Some concerns were expressed during the previous community meeting about
large rentals being located on properties less than one (1) acre.
Table 3. Residential Minimum Lot Sizes
Zone District Minimum Lot Size Vacation Home, High
Intensity Proposed?
RE-1 Rural Estate 10 acres Yes
RE Rural Estate 2.5 acres Yes
E-1 Estate 1.0 acres Yes
E Estate 0.5 acres ?
R Residential 0.25 Acres No
R-1 Residential 5,000 sf No
R-1 Residential Varies No
RM Residential 40,000 sf No
Key Issue #6: What should the review process be for vacation homes with a
larger occupancy?
Summary:
Three options are generally available for these larger vacation homes:
1. Use-by-Right: This is the least intense option. The only review process would
be the administrative act of managing a license. Staff would have very limited
ability to consider potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
2. Conditional Use Permit: This is a “middle ground” that requires consideration
be given to neighborhood impacts. Conditional Use review standards can
also be tailored to the specific use.
3. Special Review: This is the most intense option that requires a development
plan, Planning Commission review and board approval.
Public comments received throughout the project indicate a desire for the
Conditional Use Permit, providing that the review process is not too burdensome.
Given that, staff is recommending a Conditional Use Permits for the Vacation
Home, High-Intensity use by reviewed at a staff level. While staff would be the
decision-making body for these permits, an application could be referred to the
Planning Commission if there are unresolved issues with staff, Affected Agencies
or a Party-in-Interest (i.e. neighbor).
Advantage (public comments):
Allows faster review process.
Considers neighborhood input
Disadvantage (public comments):
Doesn’t provide complete certainty that a home can be used as a Vacation
Home, High-Intensity use.
Key Issue #7: What should the review criteria be for vacation homes with a larger
occupancy?
Summary:
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is proposed for the Vacation Home, High-
Intensity use. While the review standards for a CUP are similar to that of a
Special Review, submittal requirements are much less demanding.
All CUP applications must satisfy this general requirement:
The proposed application shall mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible,
potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and
services and the environment.
Examples of potential adverse impacts are provided in the draft ordinance and
include outdoor activities, trespassing onto neighboring properties and public
utility capacity. A parking plan would be required to ensure adequate parking
exists, which in most cases would trigger one (1) paved accessible space.
Operational Performance Standards (§7.10) is also referenced to allow the
applicant to address items such as the placement of trash receptacles, lighting
and noise.
Advantage (public comments):
The process allows for consideration of neighborhood impacts.
Disadvantages (public comments):
There is less certainty for the property owner because the review is discretionary
and not prescriptive.
Advantages:
• See above under “key issues”.
Disadvantages:
• See above under “key issues”.
Action Recommended:
Provide final direction on key issues and other topics as necessary, for staff to draft an
ordinance for a Planning Commission recommendation.
Budget:
• Staff Time estimated at approximately 300 hours at an estimated cost of
$13,500. Administering the code will be covered with license and permit costs.
• Facilitators used during the community meetings will average $10,000.
Level of Public Interest
High. Both public meetings held for this project were well attended and staff has
received consistent written and verbal comments on the topic.
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance, Development Code
2. Draft Ordinance, Municipal Code
3. Town Board minutes
4. Map of E Estate zone district
5. Planning Commission public comments
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code
Additions are shown in blue.
Deletions are shown in red.
Page 23 of 13
§ 2.1 CODE ADMINISTRATION AND REVIEW ROLES
A. Relevant Administrating Bodies.
The following entities shall have roles in administrating the provisions of this Code:
1. The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board of County
Commissioners (collectively referred to as "the Boards");
2. The Estes Valley Planning Commission ("EVPC");
3. The Estes Valley Board of Adjustment (BOA); and (Ord. 18-01 #3)
4. Staff of the Community Development Department of the Town of Estes Park and the
Planning Department of Larimer County (collectively referred to as "Staff").
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code
Additions are shown in blue.
Deletions are shown in red.
Page 24 of 13
B. Table 2-1: Code Administration and Review Roles.
PROCEDURE
REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY
Staff EVPC Boards [1] BOA [1]
Code Text Amendments R R DM ---
Zoning Map Amendments R R DM ---
Comprehensive Plan
Adoption/Amendment
R DM R ---
Subdivisions
Preliminary Plat R R DM ---
Final Plat R --- DM ---
Minor Subdivisions [5] (Ord. 8-05 #1) R R DM ---
Planned Unit Developments
Preliminary Plan R R DM ---
Final Plan R --- DM ---
Special Review Uses R R DM ---
Development Plans R DM [3] DM A [3] A ---
Minor Modifications DM [4] DM A [4] A [2] ---
Use Classification (Ord. 18-01 #4) DM --- A ---
Separate Lot Determinations (Ord. 18-02
#1)
DM --- A ---
Variances R --- --- DM
Administrative Appeals R --- --- DM
Temporary Use and Sign Permits DM --- --- ---
Code Interpretation DM --- --- A
Fees and Charges --- --- DM ---
Location and Extent Require (Ord. 21-10 §
1)
R DM [3] DM A [3] A ---
Conditional Use Permit (Ord. 21-10 § 1) R DM [6] DM [6] A ---
R = Review Body (Responsible for Review and Recommendation)
DM = Decision-Making Body (Responsible for Final Decision to Approve or Deny)
A = Authority to Hear and Decide Appeals of Decision-Making Body's Action--See also §12.1, "Appeals."
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code
Additions are shown in blue.
Deletions are shown in red.
Page 25 of 13
NOTES TO TABLE 2-1:
[1] The Boards and the BOAs shall have decision-making authority on the applications shown in Table
2-1 only as applied to properties located within their respective Town or County jurisdictions. (Ord.
18-01 #4)
[2] The Boards shall have authority only for appeals taken from the EVPC (not Staff) action on
applications for minor modifications.
[3] The Staff shall have decision-making authority on development plan applications specified for "Staff
Review" in Table 3-3 of this Code. See §3.8, "Development Plan Review." The EVPC shall have
decision-making authority on those development plans specified for "EVPC Review" in Table 3-3 of
this Code. Appeals from Staff decisions on a development plan shall be to the EVPC. Appeals from
EVPC decisions on a development plan shall be to the respective Board.
[4] The Staff shall have decision-making authority on applications seeking minor modifications of Code
standards by no more than 10%; whereas, the EVPC shall have decision-making authority on all
applications seeking minor modifications of Code standards by 10% or more, but in no case greater
than 25%. See §3.7, "Minor Modifications." Appeals from Staff decisions on applications for minor
modifications shall be to the EVPC.
[5] Land Consolidation Plats shall not be subject to review by the Planning Commission. (Ord. 8-05 #1)
[6] Vacation Home, High-Intensity may be reviewed by staff in accordance with §___ . Appeals from
staff decisions on a CUP shall be to the EVPC. Appeals from EVPC decisions on a CUP shall be to the
respective Board (Org. __-__)
(Ord. 18-01 #3, 4, 10/23/01; Ord. 18-02 #1, 12/10/02; Ord. 8-05 #1, 6/14/05; Ord. __-__, _/_/_)
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code
Additions are shown in blue.
Deletions are shown in red.
Page 26 of 13
§ 3.2 STANDARD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE
A. Step 1: Pre-Application Conference.
1. Purpose. The purposes of the pre-application conference are to provide an opportunity
for the Applicant and the Staff to discuss the review process schedule and submittal
requirements, the scope of the project and compliance with this Code.
2. Applicability. A pre-application conference is mandatory for the following applications:
a. Special review uses;
b. Development plans;
c. Rezoning applications;
d. Preliminary subdivision plat;
e. Preliminary PUD plans;
f. Variances;
g. Minor subdivisions; and
h. Annexations; and
h. Conditional Use Permits;
Staff may waive the pre-application conference on the ground that the proposed
development is not complex and will not have any significant impacts on services, roads,
natural resources or adjacent property. (Ord. 18-02 #2; Ord. __-__)
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code
Additions are shown in blue.
Deletions are shown in red.
Page 27 of 13
§5.1 SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS
B. Bed and Breakfast Inn and Vacation Home. (Ord. 02-10 §1)
1. General Applicable Standards. All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall
be subject to the following (see §5.1.B.2 and §5.1.B.3 for additional regulations):
a. Annual Operating Permit.
(1) Permit Required. All bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall
obtain an operating permit on an annual basis. If the property is located
within Town limits, the business license shall be considered the permit. If
the property is within the unincorporated Estes Valley, a permit shall be
obtained from the Town of Estes Park Town Clerk's Office.
(2) Local Contact. The permit shall designate a local resident or property
manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted and is available twenty-
four (24) hours per day, with regard to any violation of the provisions of this
Section. If necessary, the local resident or property manager shall respond to
complaints on site within thirty (30) minutes. The person set forth on the
application shall be the representative of the owner for all purposes with
regard to the operation of the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home.
(3) State Sales Tax License. A condition of issuance of the annual operating
permit shall be proof of a current sales tax license.
b. Estes Park Municipal Code. Properties located within the Town of Estes Park
shall comply with all the conditions and requirements set forth in the Town of Estes
Park Municipal Code, Chapter 5.20.
c. Residential Character. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not be
designed or operated in a manner that is out of character with residential use of a
dwelling unit by one household. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Except in the CD district, design shall be compatible, in terms of
building scale, mass and character, with low-intensity, low-scale residential
use.
(2) Guest rooms shall be integrated within the bed and breakfast inn or vacation
home.
(3) Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential
use. No kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in the guest rooms.
(4) Accessory buildings shall not be used for amenities beyond a gazebo or
similar outdoor room.
(5) No changes in the exterior appearance shall be allowed to accommodate
each bed and breakfast inn or vacation home, except that one (1) wall-
mounted identification sign no larger than four (4) square feet in area shall be
permitted.
(6) Vehicular traffic and noise levels shall not be out of character with residential
use.
(7) Quiet hours. No use of outdoor hot tubs and pools shall be allowed after
10:00 p.m.
d. Postings.
(1) Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall have a clearly legible notice
posted within the unit on or adjacent to the front door, containing at a
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code
Additions are shown in blue.
Deletions are shown in red.
Page 28 of 13
minimum the following information:
(a) Name and telephone number of the local contact and property owner;
(b) Maximum number of occupants and vehicles allowed;
(c) Water and gas shut off locations;
(d) Quiet hours; and
(e) Refuse disposal and curbside pick-up information.
(2) Owner or local contact of any bed and breakfast inn and vacation home shall
include in all advertising a reference to the owner’s vacation home rental
license or permit number.
(3) Neighbor Notification. Within ten 10 days of the issuance of initial Annual
Operating Permit, the owner or local contact shall mail a notice.
(a) Notice shall be by first class mail, with certificate of mailing, to the owners
of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the subject property.
(b) Notices shall provide a name and telephone number of the local contact
and property owner.
(c) Copies of all required mailing lists and mailing certificates shall be provided
to the Community Development Director within fifteen (15) days of the
mailing.
d.e. Parking.
(1) Minimum Required Parking. Except in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning
district, the number of parking spaces available to a dwelling unit housing a
bed and breakfast inn or a vacation home shall not be reduced to less than
two (2).
(2) Maximum Allowed Parking. Unless otherwise permitted by this Chapter,
parking shall comply with §5.2.B.2.e no more than three (3) vehicles shall be
parked outside at any one (1) time. Vehicles enclosed within a garage do not
count towards this maximum. On-street parking shall be prohibited. Refer
to §5.2.B.2.f, which may further limit the number of vehicles permitted on site.
e.f. Employee Housing Units. Employee housing units shall not be rented, leased or
furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See §5.2.C.2.a).
f.g. Attainable Housing Units. Attainable housing units shall not be rented, leased or
furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See §11.4.E).
g.h. Accessory Dwelling Units. Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall not
be permitted on residential lots containing an accessory dwelling. (See also
§5.2.B.2.a, which prohibits rental of accessory dwelling units regardless of the
length of tenancy).
h.i. CD District. In the CD Downtown Commercial zoning district, such use shall not
be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue.
j. Density. Only one (1) vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall be permitted
per residential dwelling unit.
k. Violations,
(1) It is a violation of this Section for any owner, representative, guest, and/or
occupant of a bed and breakfast inn or vacation home to be convicted,
including a plea of no contest, of any provision of this Section.
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code
Additions are shown in blue.
Deletions are shown in red.
Page 29 of 13
(2) An owner who offers for rent as a bed and breakfast inn or vacation home
that is not permitted for such use is a violation of this Code and is subject to
prosecution.
(3) An agent who knowingly assists an owner in advertising or renting a bed and
breakfast inn or vacation home that is not permitted for such use is a violation
of this Code and is subject to prosecution.
(4) Vacation Home, High Intensity. Upon conviction of the third violation, the
Community Development Director shall revoke the Conditional Use Permit in
accordance with §12.4.A.2 and the operation of the Vacation Home, High
Intensity, shall cease within thirty (30) days.
2. All bed and breakfast inns shall also be subject to the following:
a. Occupancy.
(1) Maximum Occupancy. No more than eight (8) guests shall occupy a bed and
breakfast inn at any one time. This maximum allowable occupancy shall be
further limited by a maximum of two (2) guests per bedroom plus two guests.
(2) Number of Parties, Bed and Breakfast Inns. Bed and breakfast inns may be
rented, leased or furnished to one (1) or more parties.
b. Home Occupations. Home occupations may be operated on the site of a bed and
breakfast inn. Bed and breakfast inns may also offer limited ancillary services to
guests, such as performing small weddings or offering classes/workshops to
guests, provided they are in character with residential use.
c. Meal Service. Bed and breakfast inns may provide meals service to
registered guests; however, meals shall not be provided to the general public.
3. All Vacation hHomes, Low-Intensity shall also be subject to the following:
a. Occupancy.
(1) Maximum Occupancy. No more than eight (8) individuals shall occupy a
vacation home at any one time. This maximum allowable occupancy shall be
further limited by a maximum of two (2) individuals per bedroom plus two (2)
individuals.
(2) Number of Parties. Vacation homes shall be rented, leased or furnished to
no more than one (1) party, occupying the vacation home as a single group.
Owners of the vacation home shall not be permitted to occupy the
vacation home while a party is present.
b. Home Occupations. Home occupations shall not be operated on the site of
a vacation home, nor shall vacation homes offer ancillary services to guests.
(See §5.2.B.2.d). (Ord. 02-10 §1)
4. All Vacation Home, High-Intensity shall also be subject to the following:
a. Review Criteria
(1) The proposed application shall mitigate, to the maximum extent feasible,
potential adverse impacts on nearby land uses, public facilities and services
and the environment. Impacts include but are not limited to:
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code
Additions are shown in blue.
Deletions are shown in red.
Page 30 of 13
(a) Outdoor activities.
(b) Trespassing onto neighboring properties.
(c) Public utility, septic system and water well capacity.
(2) All Vacation Home, High Intensity uses shall comply with the performance
standards prescribed by §7.10 of this Code.
(3) Parking Plan in accordance with §7.11.
b. Decision-Making Body
(1) Staff shall be the Decision-making Body. Staff may, at their discretion, refer
any application to the EVPC for review. Factors influencing such a referral to
the EVPC include but are not limited to unresolved concerns expressed by
staff, affected agency, or Party-in-Interest.
(2) EVPC shall be the Decision-making Body when such uses contain nine (9) or
more bedrooms.
c. Occupancy.
(1) Maximum Occupancy. No more than eighteen (18) individuals shall occupy a
Vacation Home, High-Intensity at any one time. The maximum allowable
occupancy shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) individuals per bedroom
plus two (2) individuals.
(3)(2) Number of Parties. Vacation H ome, High-Intensity shall be rented,
leased or furnished to no more than one (1) party, occupying the vacation
home as a single group. Owners of the vacation home shall not be
permitted to occupy the vacation home while a party is present.
d. Parking
(1) Minimum Required Parking. Except in the CD Downtown Commercial zoning
district, the number of parking spaces available to a dwelling unit housing a
bed and breakfast inn or a vacation home shall not be reduced to less than
two (2).
(4)(2) Maximum Allowed Parking. The Decision-making body shall establish a
maximum number of vehicles permitted at any one (1) time. Vehicles enclosed
within a garage do not count towards this maximum. On-street parking shall
be prohibited.
e. Lapse
(1) Failure of an Applicant to apply for an Annual Operating Permit and
commence operations within one (1) year of receiving approval of the
conditional use permit, or as otherwise explicitly set forth in the original
approval, shall automatically terminate the conditional use permit.
(2) Abandoning or discontinuing a legally established conditional use permit for a
period of one (1) year or more, or failing to renew an Annual Operating Permit,
shall automatically terminate the conditional use permit.
(Ord. 8-05 §1, 6/14/05; Ord. 6-06 §1, 9/26/06; Ord. 02-10 §1, 1/26/10; Ord. 19-11 §1, 9/27/11)
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code
Additions are shown in blue.
Deletions are shown in red.
Page 31 of 13
§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Table 5-2
Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts
Accessory Use
Residential Zoning District
"Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted
"CUP" = Conditional Use Permit Additional
Requirements A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1
Vacation Home
No Yes Yes No No No No §5.1.B
In CD, such use shall
not be located on the
ground floor of a
building fronting on
Elkhorn Avenue.
(Ord. 02-10 § 1)
(Ord. 18-01 §18; Ord. 15-03 §1; Ord 6-06 §1; Ord. 03-10 §1; Ord. 05-10 §1; Ord. 21-10 §1; Ord. 19-
11 §1
Table 4-1
USE
CLASSIFICATION Specific Use
Zoning Districts Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts
Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
“P” = Permitted by Right
“S” = Permitted by Special Review
“-“ = Prohibited
RE-
1
RE E-1 E R R-
1
R-
2
RM
ACCOMMODATIONS USES
Low-Intensity
Accommodations
Bed and Breakfast
Inn
- - - - - - S P §5.1.B
(Ord. 02-10
§1)
Vacation Home, Low-
Intensity
P P P P P -P P P §5.1.B
(Ord. 02-10
§1)
Vacation Home,
High-Intensity
CUP CUP CUP - - - - - §5.1.B
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code
Additions are shown in blue.
Deletions are shown in red.
Page 32 of 13
Table 4-4
USE
CLASSIFICATION Specific Use
Zoning Districts Additional
Regulations
(Apply in All
Districts Unless
Otherwise
Stated)
“P” = Permitted by Right
“S” = Permitted by Special Review
“-“ = Prohibited
A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1
Low-Intensity
Accommodations
Bed and breakfast inns P P P - - - - §5.1.B. In CD,
such use shall
not be located
on the ground
floor of a
building
fronting on
Elkhorn
Avenue.
Hotel, Small - P P - - - - In CD, such use
shall not be
located on the
ground floor of
a building
fronting on
Elkhorn
Avenue.
Vacation Home, Low-
Intensity
- P P - - - - §5.1.B. In CD,
such use shall
not be located
on the ground
floor of a
building
fronting on
Elkhorn
Avenue.
(Ord. 02-10 §1)
Vacation Home, High-
Intensity
P P P In CD, such use
shall not be
located on the
ground floor of
a building
fronting on
Elkhorn
Avenue.
Resort lodge/cabins,
low-intensity
- P - - - - - (Ord. 19-10 §1)
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code
Additions are shown in blue.
Deletions are shown in red.
Page 33 of 13
§ 13.2 USE CLASSIFICATIONS/SPECIFIC USE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
2. Accommodations, Low-Intensity.
a. General Definition: Visitor-serving facilities that provide temporary lodging for
compensation, and with an average length of stay of less than thirty (30) days
(except for permitted long-term nightly rentals--see 2.b(3) below). Such facility shall
be designed to be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and character, with a
predominantly low-intensity and low-scale residential and/or rural setting.
b. Examples: This classification includes the following types of specific uses:
(1) Bed and Breakfast Inn: A detached single-family residential dwelling unit that is
rented, leased or occupied as a single accommodations unit for
accommodations purposes for terms of less than thirty (30) days and is
operator-occupied on a full-time basis. (Ord. 2-02 §10; Ord. 11-02 §1)
(2) Hotel, Small: An establishment containing no more than eight (8) guest rooms
that provides temporary lodging with eating and drinking service and a dining
room where meals are served.
(3) Resort Lodges/Cabins, Low-Intensity: A tract of land under single ownership
and management with no more than a total of twenty (20) guest rooms or
guest units available for temporary rental. The guest rooms may be contained
in a main “lodge” building and/or contained in detached, freestanding “cabin”
structures (the latter freestanding structures shall not include recreational
vehicles or mobile homes). A single structure shall contain no more than four
(4) guest rooms or units. Guest rooms/units in a resort lodge/cabin use may
contain full kitchen facilities in lieu of “limited kitchen facilities,” but only if such
guest rooms comply with all conditions set forth in §5.1.P of this Code.
(4) Vacation Home, Low-Intensity. A residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased
or occupied for accommodations purposes for compensation for terms of less
than thirty (30) days and intended to host parties of eight (8) or less. (Ord. __ -
__)
(5) Vacation Home, High-Intensity. An accommodations establishment that is
rented, leased or occupied for accommodations purposes for compensation for
terms of less than thirty (30) days, intended to host parties between nine (9)
and eighteen (18) and no larger than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (Ord.
__-__)
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code
Additions are shown in blue.
Deletions are shown in red.
Page 34 of 13
APPENDIX B. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PRE-APPLICATION “SKETCH PLAN” SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ........................... B-1
A. Sketch Plan Submittal Requirements for Pre-Application Review of
Subdivision and Development Plan Applications ...................................................... B-1
B. Submittal Requirements for All Other Pre-Application Sketch Plan Review ............. B-1
II. SUBDIVISION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................ B-1
A. General Submittal Requirements .............................................................................. B-1
B. Sketch Plans ............................................................................................................. B-2
C. Preliminary Subdivision Plans ................................................................................... B-2
D. Final Subdivision Plats .............................................................................................. B-5
E. Condominium Projects .............................................................................................. B-9
III. DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................. B-9
A. General Submittal Requirements .............................................................................. B-9
B. Sketch Plan Submittal Requirements........................................................................ B-9
C. Development Plan Submittal Requirements ............................................................. B-11
IV. SPECIAL REVIEW USES--SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................. B-15
A. Submittal Requirements ............................................................................................ B-15
V. CODE AMENDMENTS (REZONINGS)--SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ........................ B-15
A. Submittal Requirements ............................................................................................ B-15
VI. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS--SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ............................. B-16
A. Preliminary PUD Applications--Submittal Requirements .......................................... B-16
B. Final PUD Applications--Submittal Requirements .................................................... B-16
VII. VARIANCES AND ADMINISTRATIVE (MINOR) MODIFICATIONS--
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... B-17
A. Submittal Requirements ............................................................................................ B-17
VIII. USE CLASSIFICATION--SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................ B-17
A. Submittal Requirements ............................................................................................ B-17
IX. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS ........................................................................................... B-18
A. Submittal Requirements ............................................................................................ B-18
X. SEPARATE LOT DETERMINATION - SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ........................... B-18
A. Submittal Requirements ............................................................................................ B-18
XI. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ........................................................................................... B-18
A. Vacation Home, High Intensity Submittal Requirements .......................................... B-18
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Form and Acknowledgment for Dedications ............................................................. B-41
B. Forms for All Plan Certifications ................................................................................ B-51
C. Compatible Digital Formats and Media Types .......................................................... B-61
Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code
Additions are shown in blue.
Deletions are shown in red.
Page 35 of 13
APPENDIX D. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
X. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
A. Vacation Home, High Intensity Submittal Requirements.
1. A complete application form provided by the Staff.
2. All applicable fees as set forth in the adopted Schedule of Fees.
3. Statement of Intent identifying how the application complies with §3.16.
4. A vicinity map locating the subject property and showing streets and other general
development of the surrounding area.
5. Site Plan, in a format approved by the Staff, contain at a minimum the following:
i. The location and use of all existing buildings, structures, parking areas and
signs on the property.
ii. Location of property lines; and
iii. Existing zone district;
Staff shall have the discretion to request a more detailed site plan..
6. Floor Plan showing the location of all bedrooms.
7. Written acknowledgement that the all bedrooms are equipped with proper means of
egress, in accordance with the International Building Code, as amended.
8. Written evidence of recorded, legal access to the site.
9. Completed Annual Operating Permit application (see §5.1.B.1.a).
Attachment 2: Draft Ordinance, Municipal Code
Additions are shown in blue.
Deletions are shown in red.
Page 1 of 2
Estes Park Municipal Code
Arbitration Board Option
5.20.020 Definitions.
In this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:
Accommodation means the rental, leasing or occupancy of an accommodation site and/or accommodations unit for a
total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. Accommodation site means one (1) individual parcel of real
property consisting of one (1) or more accommodations units that are under management control of a representative,
entity or agency for rental purposes.
Accommodation unit means any room, mobile home, recreational vehicle, camp site, or other area in a visitor-
serving facility that provides temporary lodging, such as any hotel, motel, guest house, apartment, dormitory, mobile
home park, recreational vehicle park or campground, any single-family dwelling, duplex, multiple-family dwelling,
condominium unit or any such similar place, to any person whom, for a consideration, uses, possesses, or has the
right to use or possess such room, mobile home site, recreational vehicle site, camp site or other area for a total
continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days.
Agent of Service means an individual or business responsible for accepting and forwarding official documentation to
a property owner. Examples of such documentation may include license renewal information, Notice of Violation,
or a Complaint and Summons to the Estes Park Municipal Court.
Arbitration Board means a group of three (3) or more people selected by the Town Clerk to consider appeals to
violations relating to vacation homes within the Estes Valley. Members of this group typically consists of Town
staff including but not limited to the Town Administrator, Community Development Director and Chief of Police.
Bed and breakfast inn means a detached single-family residential dwelling unit that is rented, leased or occupied for
accommodations purposes and is operator-occupied on a full-time basis.
5.20.110 Vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns.
This Section shall apply to vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns.
(1) Restrictions on rentals. The rental, leasing or occupancy of all vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns
subject to this Section shall be restricted as follows:
a. Compliance with the applicable regulations found in the Estes Valley Development Code is
required.
b. The application for a business license for any vacation home or bed and breakfast inns shall
designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes Valley who can be contacted by the
Town with regard to any violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the
application shall be the representative of the owner for all purposes with regard to the issuance of
the business license, the operation of the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn and revocation of
the business license pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Section.
(2) Licenses.
a. The total number of vacation home licenses and permits shall be limited to the following:
i. No more than ___ business licenses shall be issued for applications within the Town of
Estes Park.
ii. No more than ___ operating permits shall be issued within the unincorporated Estes
Valley.
iii. Should the total allowance of business licenses or operating permits be reached, the Town
Clerk shall maintain a waitlist for all subsequent applications.
Attachment 2: Draft Ordinance, Municipal Code
Additions are shown in blue.
Deletions are shown in red.
Page 2 of 2
b. An application for a business or permit for any vacation home rental shall include:
i. Written acknowledgement stating all bedrooms are equipped with proper means of
egress, in accordance with the International Building Code, as amended.
ii. Agreement signed and notarized by the local resident or property manager designating
such person as the Agent of Service for the vacation home property owner. The
agreement shall be required for vacation home rentals owned by individuals residing
outside of the Town of Estes Park.
(2)(3) Violation. It is a violation of this Section for any owner, representative, guest and/or occupant of a
vacation home or bed and breakfast inn to be convicted, including a plea of no contest, of a violation of
Section 9.08.010 (Disturbing the Peace) of this Code; to fail to collect and remit all required sales tax to the
State due and owing for the leasing, rental or occupation of a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn; to
violate any provisions of this Section; and/or to fail to acquire and pay for a business license. For the
purpose of this Section, only violations of Section 9.08.010 of this Code which occur on the premises of the
vacation home or bed and breakfast inn and while a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn is being
occupied as a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall be a violation of this Section.
(3)(4) Revocation of license. The Town may revoke the business license of any vacation home or bed
and breakfast inn for violation of the provisions of this Section as follows:
a. The Town Clerk, upon the receipt and verification of any violation of this Section, shall give
written notice to the owner or representative that a violation has occurred.
b. Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and conditions of this
Section, within two (2) years of the date of the written warning set forth in Subsection a above, the
Town Clerk may revoke the business license by giving written notice to the owner or
representative of the revocation of the license. Said revocation shall be for one (1) year from the
date of the notice.
c. Upon the receipt and verification of any subsequent violation of the terms and conditions of this
Section within two (2) years after reinstatement, the Town Clerk shall revoke the business license
by giving written notice to the owner or representative of the revocation of the business license.
Said revocation shall be for two (2) years from the date of the notice. Upon revocation of the
business license, the owner's right to operate a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn on the
property shall terminate.
(4)(5) Appeal. Any owner or representative who wishes to contest the revocation of a business license or
operating permit shall be entitled to request a hearing before the Town Clerk by written notice delivered in
person or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Town Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the date
of the warning or revocation. The Town Clerk shall hold a hearing with the Arbitration Board on the appeal
and determine whether or not a violation of the provisions of this Section has occurred. The owner shall be
entitled to present any evidence of compliance with the terms and conditions of this Section at said hearing.
The decision of the Town Clerk as to whether or not the violation occurred shall be final and not subject to
further appeal. (Ord. 4-04 §3, 2004; Ord. 02-10 §1, 2010, Ord. __-__, 2015)
5.20.030 Amount of license fee.
The business license fee is set forth as follows In this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have
the following meanings:
(6) Vacation home business licenses: one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) base fee per year; fifty dollars
($50.00) for each additional room (Ord. __-__).
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
LAKEESTES
MARYSLAKE
UV7
UV66
£¤36
£¤34
£¤36
£¤34
£¤34
£¤36
This draft document was prepared for internal use by theTown of Estes Park, CO. The town makes no claim as tothe accuracy or completeness of the data contained hereon.
Due to security concerns, The Town requests that youdo not post this document on the internet or otherwisemake it available to persons unknown to you.
0 0.5 1Miles
1 in = 1 miles±Town of Estes ParkCommunity Development
E - EstateZoning
Printed: 11/2/2015Created By: phil kleisler
Legend
Town Boundary
Estate (Town)
Estate (County)
EVDC Boundary
LAKE ESTES
2ND STMANFORD AV
E
CEDARL N1ST STASPENAVEHIGHLAND LN
ELM AVEPARKV IE
W
LN
K
O
R
A
L
C
T BAI
LEY
LN
LEXINGTON LNS SA
INT
VRA
IN
AVEBIRCHAVEPO
N
D
E
R
O
S
A
D
R
TALL PINES DR4TH STDRIFTWOOD AVELEXINGTON LNASPEN AVEK
Attachment 4: E District Map
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Public Comments
Susan L. Doylen
1981 Crags Court • P.O. Box 669
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-586-6217
November 5, 2015
Larimer Board of County Commissioners, Estes Park Mayor and Board of Trustees:
We are at a tipping point in the community. We are well on our way to becoming a resort where everyone visits
and no one lives, rather than community people come to visit.
Inviting and encouraging more visitors to come at our already busiest time, while out of town/out of state
investors purchase residential properties that have served as residences and seasonal housing for years,
converting them to nightly rentals/VRBOs, creates even more demand for services with even fewer places for
service workers to live. Even our year-round workers (teachers, nurse, police) commute from longer distances as
local wages fail to keep pace with a limited supply of housing that demand has increased the pricing of.
The core of our community are the people who invest their time, labors, and volunteer time into the special
place that this is, we are not disposable but we are at risk of displacement by VRBOs. Through leadership
indifference, entrepreneurial pursuits and lobbying efforts of those who profit form the practice, the concerns of
neighbors are being down-played.
Having lived in our wonderful friendly family neighborhood for 28 years we have recently experienced a VRBO
in our backyard - quite literally. During summer our home has always been our sanctuary from the madness we
face every long hour day we work downtown, not this past summer. Large groups rented the home behind us not
once, but week after week after week. The quiet that was our neighborhood was disrupted by people partying on
their vacation. More people than were allowed, more cars than were allowed. Late hours and lack of privacy or
respect for boundaries - I understand they are on vacation but our neighborhood should not be subjected to this -
our neighborhood is not a resort. Our neighborhood sanctuary and so many others in town are slipping away,
violating the privacy of those who live, work and volunteer, to make our a community a special place and hoped
it would be so in the future. You as leaders have the ability to create tools through zoning, ordinance and
municipal court to stop this cancerous trend of community destruction.
Government regulates the location of industrial activities, liquor stores, bars, pot shops, gun stores, day care
centers, motels and large scale lodging activities, vacation rentals should be regulated as well.
Some general suggestions:
• Limit nightly rentals to only certain multi family zones and only then by special review
• Immediately change all residential zoning areas to rentals only on long term basis30 - 60 days or more.
• Require notification by VRBOs to all neighboring property owners of all existing nightly rentals
within 250 - 500 feet including 24 hour contact information for both owner and property manager.
• Enforce and document all neighbor complaints with a strict 3 strikes ordinance.
• In addition to the existing licensing, sales and lodging tax collection, conversion to commercial rates
for local utilities, commercial insurance requirements, require annual reports and perform spot audits
of activities and compliance of posting, filing and contract compliance.
• Require insurance to hold harmless neighboring property owners in the event an accident occurs on
neighboring property by a guest of the VRBOs.
• Determine why these properties can’t be taxed at commercial real and personal property rates of 29%
that requires the biannual questionnaire that other commercial property owners are required to fill out.
• Hold future meetings that affect neighborhoods at times when season doesn’t preclude participation.
Yes, all of these suggestions have costs but the long-term cost of losing neighborhoods and communities will
have far greater costs in the long run.
God forbid, someone flicks a butt in an un-mowed field of weeds and destroys neighboring homes down wind,
or engages in a pop-up meth lab or is a sex offender - registered or not. Yes these are extremes but all it will take
is 1 tragic event that could have been prevented if stronger tools were in place.
As a board you voted against worker housing in response to neighbor objections at Falcon Ridge. Not good for
local housing concerns - workers and the economy lost on that one. I will wait to see to see how you vote and
who will prevail in this discussion - neighbors who are trying to preserve their neighborhoods or out-of-
town/state ‘entrepreneurs’ who do little to support our community and more to destroy our neighborhoods for
personal financial gain.
Please use the tools you have - zoning, ordinance, enforcement and municipal court to stop the practice of
nightly rentals and reverse the course of degrading our neighborhoods and ultimately our community.
Sincerely,
Sue Doylen
P.S. On another note - I am very disappointed and concerned that the Stanley Hotel and it’s owner can
command, and is directed by the Town Board to have staff give preferential treatment and priority over all other
citizens, businesses, and existing projects. Giving the ill-conceived plan top-priority for those of us who have
been on hold for over 2 and a half years is a slap in the face. While I appreciate the growth of business, to do so
without a proper plan and seemingly on a whim, never ends well. The perception stinks.