The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Joint Town Board and County Commissioners 2016-03-30 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:00 p.m. Town Board Room The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services, programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACTION ITEM: 1. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ORDINANCE #10-16 - PUBLIC HEARING – AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO VACATION HOME REGULATIONS. Planner Kleisler. LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONER ACTION ITEM: 1. LARIMER COUNTY RESOLUTION - PUBLIC HEARING – AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO VACATION HOME REGULATIONS. Order of Proceedings:  Mayor Pinkham & Commissioner Donnelly to Open the Public Hearing for the Action items.  Mayor Pinkham & Commissioner Donnelly to Close Public Hearing for the Action items.  Mayor Pinkham to open the Town Board of Trustees meeting to take action on Ordinance #10-16.  Mayor Pinkham to close the meeting.  Commissioner Donnelly to open the Larimer County Commissioner meeting to take action on Resolution.  Commissioner Donnelly to close Larimer County Commissioner meeting. NOTE: The Town Board and County Commissioners reserve the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham Estes Park Board of Trustees Honorable Commissioner Chair Donnelly Larimer County Board of County Commissioners Town Administrator Lancaster County Manager Hoffmann From: Philip Kleisler, Planner II Date: March 30, 2016 RE: Text Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code Related to Vacation Home Regulations Objective: Conduct a public hearing to determine compliance with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review. The Estes Valley Planning Commission has provided two (2) recommendations regarding new regulations for Vacation Homes in the Estes Valley: 1. Approval of Ordinance 10-16 (Attachment 1) 2. Approval of Cap on the number of Licenses in the Estes Valley (incorporated into Ordinance 10-16). Present Situation: The so-called “sharing economy” continues to grow out of almost universal internet usage. This has allowed the longstanding vacation home use in Estes Park 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. The vacation home rental market is quickly growing and evolving, leading to local governments at times scrambling to catch up to industry practices. Our community, as with many others at this time, has the difficult task of crafting local regulations that balance private property rights with the need to preserve residential neighborhood character. On one hand vacation homes are playing a central role for many people wanting to live or eventually retire in Estes Park. On the other hand, community members have seen many of their neighboring homes be converted into vacation homes, thus substantially changing the residential character of their neighborhood. The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County have engaged in a long and public conversation over the proliferation of vacation home rentals in the Estes Valley Planning Page 2 of 9 Area. The Town and County have hosted four (4) public forums and the Planning Commission has held one public hearing to accept testimony about this text amendment. Each of these meetings were well attended, attracting between roughly 70 to over 100 people. Most recently, the Town Board, County Commissioners and Planning Commission discussed various components of this project during a February 2, 2016 joint work session. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 16 and March 15 and has provided recommendations to the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners. The attached ordinance attempts to balance the needs of the thriving vacation home industry with the concerns we have heard from year-round residents. This ordinance does not address the concept of renting a vacation home to parties larger than eight, which is being independently reviewed by a County-led task force. Contents Proposal: ......................................................................................................................... 3 §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review ...................................................... 3 Annual Operating Permit Limit ..................................................................................... 5 Neighborhood Communication .................................................................................... 6 Enforcement ................................................................................................................ 7 Advantages: .................................................................................................................... 8 Disadvantages: ............................................................................................................... 8 Action Recommended: .................................................................................................... 8 Sample Motions: ............................................................................................................. 9 Budget: ............................................................................................................................ 9 Attachments: ................................................................................................................... 9 Page 3 of 9 Proposal: §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria: 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area affected; Staff Comment: Prior to 2010 vacation homes were allowed in the Town as an accessory use to single family homes. An accessory use refers to the use of land that is clearly incidental and subordinate to the primary use of land. An example of an accessory use is a hotel pool or restaurant that is primarily used by the on-site guests. In 2010 the Town Board and County Commissioners opted to allow vacation homes as a principle use throughout the Estes Valley. To achieve this, the regulations needed to be transferred from the Estes Park Municipal Code to the Estes Valley Development Code. Larimer County prohibited vacation homes prior to these 2010 changes. Vacation rentals have increased each year since the changes in 2010, bringing with them ancillary services such as local marketing websites and professional property managers. The continued rise in local vacation home rentals is not surprising given the national trend moving in that direction. Many vacationers prefer the comfort and convenience of renting a home rather than bunking together in a hotel room. Not surprisingly, websites connecting vacationers with vacation home owners have become very popular. A substantial change was made in 2010 that reclassified vacation homes in the Estes Valley from an accessory use to a principle use. That change to a principle use allowed single family homes to be built or converted to serve solely as a vacation home. Prior to 2010 the principle use generally needed to be long term residential, with vacation homes allowed as an accessory use. In practice this usually consisted of home owners occasionally renting their primary residence as a vacation home. Since 2010 we have seen a 64.5% increase in licensed vacation homes in the Estes Valley (Figure 1). Staff expects the increase in rentals to continue for the foreseeable future. The increase of this accommodation use in residential districts will generate some land use conflicts among rental owners and nearby residents. Because of this staff believes that the provisions of the draft ordinance, particularly those related to neighborhood communication, are critical in facilitating harmonious relationships in residential neighborhoods. Page 4 of 9 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; Staff Comment: Specific policies of the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan are listed below, along with staff comments. Housing Policy 5.2 Encourage housing for permanent residents of all sectors of the community that is integrated into and dispersed throughout existing neighborhoods. Staff Comment: The recommended limit (or “cap”) of Annual Operating Permits may advance this policy by preserving some level of long-term residential use should the limit ever be reached. Economics Policy 7.1 Maintain a unique blend of businesses, residents and guests, without negatively affecting the natural beauty of the Estes Valley. Staff Comment: Vacation Homes currently provide an alternative to traditional Hotel/motels. Economics Policy 7.3 Sustain and support the existing tourism industry and marketing programs. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Number of Permits Town County 206 Figure 1. Number of Annual Operating Permits over time. 339 Page 5 of 9 Staff Comment: Vacation homes are one component of vigorous marketing for lodging facilities in the Estes Valley. Aside from the numerous independent agencies offering vacation homes, the Estes Park Local Marketing District promotes both hotels and cabins. There has recently been some level of coordination among vacation home owners and the Estes Park Local Marketing District. 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Staff Comment: The draft amendment has been shared with service providers. The draft ordinance should have little-to-no impact on public services. Annual Operating Permit Limit The Planning Commission received public comment about setting a limit on the number of licenses, which was then discussed at the recent joint work session. The Town Board and County Commissioners requested that the Planning Commission discuss this concept and provide a recommendation. The number of permitted vacation homes in the Estes Valley has steadily increased from 206 in 2010 to 339 this year. A central land use policy question in determining any potential limit is: “how many of our housing units should be allowed to be a vacation home?” Table 1 lists some options that the Planning Commission discussed. Currently, the 339 permitted vacation homes in the Estes Valley represent 4.7% of Housing Units counted in the 2010-2014 American Communities Survey (Census Bureau). Increasing the limit to 10% of total Housing Units would allow for up to 729 Annual Operating Permits throughout the Estes Valley. Twenty five percent (25%) of Housing Units would set the limit at 1,822. Table 1. Options for vacation home limit. Town Unincorporated Valley Total Housing Units 4,227 3,060 7,287 Vacation Home Licenses 187 152 339 VHRs as a % of Housing Units1 4.4% 5.0% 4.7% Vacation Home Options 5% of Housing Units 211 153 364 7% of Housing Units 296 214 510 10% of Housing Units 423 306 729 25% of Housing Units 1,057 765 1,822 1 Source: American Communities Survey 2000-2014, developed by Colorado State Demography Office. Page 6 of 9 Setting a limit of the number of Annual Operating Permits is ultimately a land use policy decision. Table 2 below lists benchmarking of numerous Colorado communities. Table 2. Initial benchmarking analysis for license cap. City Housing Units2 VHRs (Estimate) VHRs as a % of Housing Units Aspen 6,039 651 11% Avon 3,882 381 10% Durango 7,659 97 1% Frisco 3,140 557 18% Grand Lake (central) 1,015 76 7% Grand Lake (greater area) 3,485 236 7% Steamboat Springs 9,766 2,185 22% Telluride 1,963 503 26% Telluride/Mountain Village 3,890 697 18% Vail 7,209 1,131 16% Boulder 44,029 292 1% Fort Collins 59,518 115 0% Denver 290,624 459 0% The Planning Commission recommended that the Boards set a Valley-wide limit on the number of annual operating permits to 700, with an annual review by the boards. If adopted, the Town would continue issuing Annual Operating Permits. If the total number of vacation home permits throughout the Estes Valley reaches 700, staff would manage a waitlist for all subsequent applications. At that point the Boards’ could then increase this limit or take no action. Generally, such a limit would have the strongest impact on vacation homes within residential zone districts. Development within an accommodations zone district, approved for other uses such as a Hotel/Motel or Resort Lodge/Cabin, would not require a vacation home licenses and would therefore be unaffected by these regulations. As an example, the units at Mary’s Lake Lodge and the Black Canyon Inn are zoned A Accommodations and are approved as a Hotel/Motel and Resort Lodge/Cabin. Therefore, these units would not require a vacation home permit. Neighborhood Communication A central theme staff has heard throughout the public process has been the need for better communication between vacation home owners and nearby property owners. The EVDC does not currently require any neigh borhood notification through the 2 Source: American Communities Survey 2000-2014, developed by Colorado State Demography Office. Page 7 of 9 licensing process. The draft ordinance seeks to improve communication among the various groups involved in vacation home rentals: 1. Renters. §5.1.B.1.d(1) requires an internal posting containing, at a minimum, the contact information for the property manager or owner, the maximum number of occupants and vehicles; water and gas shutoff locations; quiet hours; and information about refuse disposal. 2. Code Compliance Staff. §5.1.B.1.d(2) requires a reference to the property’s license number with all online listings. 3. Neighboring Properties. §5.1.B.1.d(3) requires that written notice be mailed to nearby neighbors providing the name and contact information for local contact and owner. The purpose of this mailing is to ensure that neighbors of a vacation home know who to call if there is an issue or emergency. These mailings will not constitute a comment period for the permit issuance. Enforcement The topic of enforcement has been a constant theme throughout this project. As a result, staff has identified enforcement options using existing regulations, including:  Annual Renewals: The Community Development Director may deny or withhold a vacation home permit during the annual renewal process until a violation is corrected or resolved in court. Such a decision would implement an existing regulation (§12.4.A.1). The Planning Commission recommends that they (the Commission) hear appeals of this decision in lieu of the Town Board or County Commissioners.  Permit Revocation Throughout the Year: As a result of code violations, the Community Development Director (“Decision-making Body) may call a public hearing to revoke a vacation home permit pursuant to §12.4.A.1. This would involve a notice and comment period for the applicant and nearby neighbors of the vacation home. The Planning Commission recommends that they (the Commission) hear appeals of this decision in lieu of the Board of Adjustment. While both of these permitting processes rely on existing regulations and could therefore be implemented without changes to the EVDC, staff included them in the ordinance to ensure transparency about how we will be administering these regulations. Town staff are in the process of amending the administrative procedures found in Code Compliance Policy #480. This policy, approved by the Town Administrator, lays out how Town staff enforces land use violations within the Estes Valley. The policy was developed through a public process to determine priorities and is reviewed on an annual basis. Page 8 of 9 Following the adoption of new regulations, the Code Compliance Policy will be amended to include more specific information about how staff administers the new regulations. Part of that process will involve using existing public comments to determine when a hearing should be scheduled for a vacation home. Owners of vacation homes have recommended that violations be weighted given that some infractions will be minor and some will be substantial; those public comments will inform this administrative policy.  Enforcement Timing Limitations: Chapter 12 of the EVDC, Enforcement and Penalties, establishes the various types of land use violations and subsequent enforcement steps staff must take. All non-emergency matters currently require a 15-day window for the property owner to correct the violation. Vacation homes are a relatively new transient land use with different renters every few days. In most cases the alleged violators have left the rental within that 15-day window. Per comments from the Town Attorney, the draft ordinance allows the Code Compliance Officer to shorten the 15-day window by replacing the word “shall” with “may”. The ordinance also lists the local contact as being able to receive such notices. This change is a first step in establishing a Penalty Assessment Ticket for land use violations, which has been a consistent recommendation by the community. Advantages:  An advantage to establishing a Valley-wide limit on Annual Operating Permits is that future boards may reassess the community's direction if the cap is ever reached, allowing for a “pause” if needed.  §5.1.B.1.d Posting of the draft ordinance seeks to strengthen communication among vacation homes owners and area neighbors. Disadvantages:  §5.1.B.1.d Posting of the draft ordinance will require additional efforts of the vacation home owner. However, increased communication to renters and neighbors may ultimately decrease time spent on nuisance issues. Additionally, staff will be sending address listings within a vacation home welcome packet to ease the burden on rental owners. Action Recommended: On March 15, 2016, the Estes Valley Planning Commission provided the following recommendations to the boards: 1. Estes Valley Planning Commission voted 6-0 (one absent) to recommend approval of Ordinance 10-16. Page 9 of 9 2.Estes Valley Planning Commission voted 5-1 (one absent) to recommend approval of a cap of 700 vacation home annual operating permits in the Estes Valley, with a reevaluation on an annual basis. Sample Motions: Estes Park Town Board Sample Motions: I move to APPROVE (or deny) Ordinance 10-16. I move to APPROVE Ordinance 10-16 with the following amendments (state amendments). Larimer County Board of County Commissioners Sample Motions: I move that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Development Code amendments in the Estes Valley Planning Area. I move that the Board of County Commissioners deny the proposed Development Code amendments. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest High. All public forums and meetings have been very well attended. Staff continues to receive written and verbal comments on the topic. Attachments: 1.Red-lined code amendment 2.Town of Estes Park Ordinance #10-16 with Exhibit A 3.Larimer County Resolution with Exhibit A 4.Planning Commission Minutes (Feb & March) 5.American Planning Association Article (read by Planning Commission) 6.Enforcement Notes Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code Additions are shown in blue. Deletions are shown in red. §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. 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. (4) Violations. The relevant Decision-Making Bodies may deny or withhold the renewal of an Annual Operating Permit until an alleged violation related to such property, use or development is corrected, in accordance with §12.4.A.1. The relevant Decision-Making Bodies may revoke the Annual Operating Permit for twelve (12) months, at any time in accordance with §12.4.A.2. Appeals to this section shall be made to the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Nothing described herein shall limit the Town or County, within their respective jurisdictions, from exercising other remedies and enforcement powers pursuant to Chapter 12 of this Code. (5) Density. The total number of Annual Operating Permits shall be limited to 700. Should the total allowance of Annual Operating Permits be reached, the Town shall maintain a waitlist for all subsequent applications. 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. Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code Additions are shown in blue. Deletions are shown in red. (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. Use of outdoor hot tubs or pools shall not be allowed before 9:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. d. Postings. (1) Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall have a clearly legible notice posted on-site, containing at a minimum the following: (a) Property Line Boundaries; (b) The physical address of the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home; (c) Name and telephone number of the local contact and property owner; (d) Maximum number of occupants and vehicles allowed; (e) Safety information, such as water and gas shut off locations and fire extinguishers; (f) Quiet hours; (g) Exterior lighting standards; and (h) Refuse disposal, wildlife protection standards, outdoor fire regulations and domestic animal regulations. (2) Property owner or local contact shall include in all print or online advertising the license or permit number. (3) Neighbor Notification. Prior to issuance of initial Annual Operating Permit, the owner or local contact shall be responsible for mailing a written notice. (a) Notice shall be mailed, with certificate of mailing or other method as approved by staff, to the owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the subject property. (b) Notices shall provide a name and telephone number of the local contact and property owner. Any change in the local contact or property owner shall be furnished to the Community Development Director and owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the subject property within two (2) weeks of the change. (c) Copies of all required mailing lists and mailing certificates shall be provided to the Community Development Director prior to issuance of initial Annual Operating Permit. (d) Vacation homes legally existing as of the effective date of this code shall be required to send written notice pursuant to §5.1.B.1.D.3. 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). Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code Additions are shown in blue. Deletions are shown in red. (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. 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 homes 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) Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code Additions are shown in blue. Deletions are shown in red. Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Nonresidential Zoning Districts "P" = Permitted by Right "S" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Low-Intensity Accommodations Vacation Home —P P P — — — — §5.1.B. In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. (Ord. 02-10 §1) § 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts Accessory Use Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted "CUP" = Conditional Use Permit Additional Requirements A A-1 CD CO 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 Attachment 1: Draft Ordinance, Development Code Additions are shown in blue. Deletions are shown in red. § 12.7 - ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Nonemergency Matters. A. In the case of a violation of this Code that does not constitute an emergency or require immediate attention, written notice of the nature of the violation shall be given to the property owner, agent, occupant, local contact or the Applicant for any relevant permit. Notice shall be given in person, or by certified U.S. Mail, or by posting notice on the premises. The notice shall specify the Code provisions allegedly in violation, and— unless a shorter time frame is allowed by this Chapter—shall may state that the individual has a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of the receipt of the notice in which to correct the alleged violations before further enforcement action shall be taken. The notice shall also state any appeal and/or variance procedures available pursuant to this Code. The Board of Trustees or Board of County Commissioners, as applicable, may grant an extension of the time to cure an alleged violation, up to a total of ninety (90) days, if the Board finds that due to the nature of the alleged violation, it reasonably appears that it cannot be corrected within fifteen (15) days. (Ord 2-02 #3) ORDINANCE NO. 10-16 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE VACATION HOME RENTAL REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 4.4.C.4 “Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards in Nonresidential Zoning Districts”; Section 5.1.B “Bed and Breakfast Inn and Vacation Home”; Section 5.2.C.b “Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts”; Section 12.7 “Enforcement Procedures”; and WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth in Exhibit “A” and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1: The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit “A”. Section 2: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THIS 30th DAY OF MARCH, 2016. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2016 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the ________ day of , 2016, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Attachment 2: Town of Estes Park Ordinance #10-16 with Exhibit A Ordinance 10-16 Exhibit A §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. 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. (4) Violations. The relevant Decision-Making Bodies may deny or withhold the renewal of an Annual Operating Permit until an alleged violation related to such property, use or development is corrected, in accordance with §12.4.A.1. The relevant Decision-Making Bodies may revoke the Annual Operating Permit for twelve (12) months, at any time in accordance with §12.4.A.2. Appeals to this section shall be made to the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Nothing described herein shall limit the Town or County, within their respective jurisdictions, from exercising other remedies and enforcement powers pursuant to Chapter 12 of this Code. (5) Density. The total number of Annual Operating Permits shall be limited to 700. Should the total allowance of Annual Operating Permits be reached, the Town shall maintain a waitlist for all subsequent applications. 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. Attachment 2: Town of Estes Park Ordinance #10-16 with Exhibit A (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. Use of outdoor hot tubs or pools shall not be allowed before 9:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. d. Postings. (1) Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall have a clearly legible notice posted on-site, containing at a minimum the following: (a) Property Line Boundaries; (b) The physical address of the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home; (c) Name and telephone number of the local contact and property owner; (d) Maximum number of occupants and vehicles allowed; (e) Safety information, such as water and gas shut off locations and fire extinguishers; (f) Quiet hours; (g) Exterior lighting standards; and (h) Refuse disposal, wildlife protection standards, outdoor fire regulations and domestic animal regulations. (2) Property owner or local contact shall include in all print or online advertising the license or permit number. (3) Neighbor Notification. Prior to issuance of initial Annual Operating Permit, the owner or local contact shall be responsible for mailing a written notice. (a) Notice shall be mailed, with certificate of mailing or other method as approved by staff, to the owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the subject property. (b) Notices shall provide a name and telephone number of the local contact and property owner. Any change in the local contact or property owner shall be furnished to the Community Development Director and owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the subject property within two (2) weeks of the change. (c) Copies of all required mailing lists and mailing certificates shall be provided to the Community Development Director prior to issuance of initial Annual Operating Permit. (d) Vacation homes legally existing as of the effective date of this code shall be required to send written notice pursuant to §5.1.B.1.D.3. 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 Attachment 2: Town of Estes Park Ordinance #10-16 with Exhibit A two (2). f. Maximum Allowed Parking. Unless otherwise permitted by this Chapter parking shall comply with §5.2.B.2.e. On-street parking shall be prohibited. g. 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). h. 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). i. 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). j. 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. k. Density. Only one (1) vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall be permitted per residential dwelling unit. 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 homes 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) Attachment 2: Town of Estes Park Ordinance #10-16 with Exhibit A Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Nonresidential Zoning Districts "P" = Permitted by Right "S" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Low-Intensity Accommodations Vacation Home P P P — — — — §5.1.B. In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. (Ord. 02-10 §1) § 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts Accessory Use Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted "CUP" = Conditional Use Permit Additional Requirements A A-1 CD CO 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 Attachment 2: Town of Estes Park Ordinance #10-16 with Exhibit A § 12.7 - ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES A. Nonemergency Matters. In the case of a violation of this Code that does not constitute an emergency or require immediate attention, written notice of the nature of the violation shall be given to the property owner, agent, occupant, local contact or the Applicant for any relevant permit. Notice shall be given in person, or by certified U.S. Mail, or by posting notice on the premises. The notice shall specify the Code provisions allegedly in violation, and—unless a shorter time frame is allowed by this Chapter —may state that the individual has a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of the receipt of the notice in which to correct the alleged violations before further enforcement action shall be taken. The notice shall also state any appeal and/or variance procedures available pursuant to this Code. The Board of Trustees or Board of County Commissioners, as applicable, may grant an extension of the time to cure an alleged violation, up to a total of ninety (90) days, if the Board finds that due to the nature of the alleged violation, it reasonably appears that it cannot be corrected within fifteen (15) days. (Ord 2-02 #3) Attachment 2: Town of Estes Park Ordinance #10-16 with Exhibit A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING VACATION HOME RENTAL REGULATIONS WHEREAS: 1. The Estes Valley Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 4.4.C.4 “Table 4-5: Density and Dimensional Standards in Nonresidential Zoning Districts”; Section 5.1.B “Bed and Breakfast Inn and Vacation Home”; Section 5.2.C.b “Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts”; Section 12.7 “Enforcement Procedures”; and 2. Said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and 3. The Larimer County Board of County Commissioners has determined that it is in the best interest of the County that the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, as set forth on Exhibit “A” and recommended for approval by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: a. The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended as more fully set forth on Exhibit “A”. b. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption and publication. Dated: ___________ Board of County Commissioners, Larimer County, Colorado By: Chair ATTEST: Deputy Clerk to the Board Date: _______________ Approved as to form: County Attorney Attachment 3: Larimer County Resolution with Exhibit A EXHIBIT A Development Code Amendments Approved By the Board of County Commissioners on March 30, 2016 §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. 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. (4) Violations. The relevant Decision-Making Bodies may deny or withhold the renewal of an Annual Operating Permit until an alleged violation related to such property, use or development is corrected, in accordance with §12.4.A.1. The relevant Decision-Making Bodies may revoke the Annual Operating Permit for twelve (12) months, at any time in accordance with §12.4.A.2. Appeals to this section shall be made to the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Nothing described herein shall limit the Town or County, within their respective jurisdictions, from exercising other remedies and enforcement powers pursuant to Chapter 12 of this Code. (5) Density. The total number of Annual Operating Permits shall be limited to 700. Should the total allowance of Annual Operating Permits be reached, the Town shall maintain a waitlist for all subsequent applications. 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 Attachment 3: Larimer County Resolution with Exhibit A 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. Use of outdoor hot tubs or pools shall not be allowed before 9:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. d. Postings. (1) Bed and breakfast inns and vacation homes shall have a clearly legible notice posted on-site, containing at a minimum the following: (a) Property Line Boundaries; (b) The physical address of the bed and breakfast inn or vacation home; (c) Name and telephone number of the local contact and property owner; (d) Maximum number of occupants and vehicles allowed; (e) Safety information, such as water and gas shut off locations and fire extinguishers; (f) Quiet hours; (g) Exterior lighting standards; and (h) Refuse disposal, wildlife protection standards, outdoor fire regulations and domestic animal regulations. (2) Property owner or local contact shall include in all print or online advertising the license or permit number. (3) Neighbor Notification. Prior to issuance of initial Annual Operating Permit, the owner or local contact shall be responsible for mailing a written notice. (a) Notice shall be mailed, with certificate of mailing or other method as approved by staff, to the owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the subject property. (b) Notices shall provide a name and telephone number of the local contact and property owner. Any change in the local contact or property owner shall be furnished to the Community Development Director and owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the subject property within two (2) weeks of the change. (c) Copies of all required mailing lists and mailing certificates shall be provided to the Community Development Director prior to issuance of initial Annual Operating Permit. (d) Vacation homes legally existing as of the effective date of this code shall be required to send written notice pursuant to §5.1.B.1.D.3. e. Parking. Attachment 3: Larimer County Resolution with Exhibit A (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). f. Maximum Allowed Parking. Unless otherwise permitted by this Chapter parking shall comply with §5.2.B.2.e. On-street parking shall be prohibited. Employee Housing Units. Employee housing units shall not be rented, leased or furnished for tenancies of less than thirty (30) days. (See §5.2.C.2.a). g. 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). 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). 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. 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 homes 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) Attachment 3: Larimer County Resolution with Exhibit A Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 4-4 Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts Use Classification Specific Use Nonresidential Zoning Districts "P" = Permitted by Right "S" = Permitted by Special Review "—" = Prohibited Additional Regulations (Apply in All Districts Unless Otherwise Stated) A A-1 CD CO O CH I-1 Low-Intensity Accommodations Vacation Home P P P — — — — §5.1.B. In CD, such use shall not be located on the ground floor of a building fronting on Elkhorn Avenue. (Ord. 02-10 §1) § 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Table 5-2 Accessory Uses Permitted in the Nonresidential Zoning Districts Accessory Use Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted "CUP" = Conditional Use Permit Additional Requirements A A-1 CD CO 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 § 12.7 - ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Nonemergency Matters. A. In the case of a violation of this Code that does not constitute an emergency or require immediate attention, written notice of the nature of the violation shall be given to the property owner, agent, occupant, local contact or the Applicant for any relevant permit. Notice shall be given in person, or by certified U.S. Mail, or by posting notice on the premises. The notice shall specify the Code provisions allegedly in violation, and— unless a shorter time frame is allowed by this Chapter—may state that the individual has a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of the receipt of the notice in which to correct the alleged violations before further enforcement action shall be taken. The notice shall also state any appeal and/or variance procedures available pursuant to this Code. The Board of Trustees or Board of County Commissioners, as applicable, may grant an extension of the time to cure an alleged violation, up to a total of ninety (90) days, if the Board finds that due to the nature of the alleged violation, it reasonably appears that it cannot be corrected within fifteen (15) days. (Ord 2-02 #3) Attachment 3: Larimer County Resolution with Exhibit A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 1 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Betty Hull, Commissioners Doug Klink, Nancy Hills, Steve Murphree, Sharry White, Russ Schneider, Michael Moon Attending: Chair Hull, Commissioners Murphree, Moon, White, and Klink Also Attending: Interim Director Karen Cumbo, Town Administrator Frank Lancaster, Planner Phil Kleisler, Town Board Liaison John Phipps, Larimer County Liaison Michael Whitley, and Recording Secretary Karen Thompson Absent: Commissioners Hills and Schneider Chair Hull called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. There were approximately 40 people in attendance. Each Commissioner was introduced. Chair Hull explained the process for accepting public comment at today’s meeting. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes, December 9, 2015 Special Planning Commission meeting. B. Approval of minutes, December 15, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (White/Murphree) to approve the consent agenda as presented and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 3. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) AND ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE (EPMC) RELATING TO VACATION HOME RENTALS (VHR) Planner Kleisler reviewed the staff report. The Planning Commissioners, Town Trustees, and County Commissioners have had long conversations about vacation rentals in the Estes Valley Development Code Area. He gave a brief overview of the various Board/Commission meetings and public forums. The County Commissioners held their own public forums to gain additional public comment. A recent joint work session with all three boards gave some direction to move forward; however, a proposed new use of vacation homes to parties greater than 8 will be worked through via a task force facilitated by the county. The Chief Building Official, Will Birchfield, spoke at two Town Board Study Sessions regarding the relationship between local building codes and vacation homes. The Town Board recently adopted a local amendment to the building code which will require a life safety inspection of vacation home rentals within the town limits. The county will be updating their building codes within the next few months, and will probably be addressing this topic at the county level. Another joint work session is planned for March 30, 2016. The proposed code amendment was discussed during the study session, and Planner Kleisler would be reviewing the highlights of that discussion. The Planning Commission could choose to vote on the proposed amendment or continue it to the March 15, 2016 meeting. The components of the proposed amendment include the following key issues: Annual Operating Permit Limit. Planner Kleisler stated the Town Board and County Commission requested the Planning Commission discuss this concept and provide a recommendation as to whether or not to pursue a limit on operating permits issued. There has been an increase in the number of vacation home rentals within the past five years. 2010 had 206 vacation home licenses, with the current number being 339. Code compliance for vacation home rentals started to become a priority in 2014, with the hiring of a full-time code compliance officer. One option to consider is to place a valley-wide cap on the number of vacation home rental operating permits issued. Planner Kleisler stated 4.7% (339) of total housing units (7,087) in the Estes Valley are permitted vacation home rentals. If a cap was to be considered, other percentages could be 5% (364 VHRs), 7% (510 VHRs), 10% (729 VHRs) or 25% (1822 VHRs). The statistics presented do not account for any unlicensed units. Planner Kleisler showed a graph of other mountain towns and the percentages of VHRs to total housing. Of approximately ten communities reviewed, only Durango, Colorado has a limit placed on the number of VHRs in their community. The Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commissioners want to hear public comment prior to making a decision on placing a limit on the number of VHRs in the Estes Valley. Neighborhood Communication. Planner Kleisler stated section D of the proposed code amendment would require property owners to post a notice of current regulations on the site of each VHR. Included in this posting would be items such as contact information, maximum number of occupants and vehicles allowed, safety information, quiet hours, information about the town’s local leash law, refuse disposal and wildlife protection standards. Staff sees this as a way to positively communicate between property owners and renters. Planner Kleisler stated the proposed amendment would require property owners/managers to post the operating permit number on the VHRs advertising web page and on printed advertising. Staff would provide a basic form for owners/managers to complete and post on site. This form could look different, depending on whether the property was within the town limits or in unincorporated Larimer County. Planner Kleisler stated neighbor notification is being proposed, which would require a written notice to neighbors within 100 feet, providing owner and local contact name, contact information, and other information pertinent to the VHR. Proof of mailing would be required. Any updates to the previously mentioned information would constitute a new mailing. Parking. Planner Kleisler stated the current allowance under the VHR ordinance is no more than three vehicles. Public comment has expressed a desire to revert the current restrictions back to what is allowed for a non-VHR in a single-family residential zone, which would allow more vehicles on larger lots. If the Planning Commissioners choose to allow this portion of the proposed amendment, some VHRs would be allowed additional vehicles if the driveway and other off-street designated parking areas are large enough. Staff recommends to retain the current prohibition of on-street parking for VHRs. There is also a limitation in this chapter concerning the placement and storage of recreation vehicles on the site, as well as the occupants of the principal structure needing to belong to the occupants. In other words, people not staying at the VHR could not park their car there for an extended period of time. Planner Kleisler stated Larimer County staff held two public forums in Estes Park, and from those forums came various recommendations from County staff relating to the annual renewal processes. They recommended an annual mass mailing during the renewal period; a comment period for adjacent neighbors, and if comments brought forth related to legitimate land use issues, some sort of review process would be triggered (conditional use permit or something similar). Planner Kleisler stated the Town Clerk’s office would most likely be responsible for those mailings. Currently, the Town does not have the staff to operate this process, and staff has contacted County staff to further discuss the issue. Perhaps properties that receive a confirmed violation could trigger a reevaluation of the property during the renewal process. Meetings with the property owner/manager/local contact could occur with Town staff, with the Community Development Director then providing direction moving forward (conditions of approval, revocation, etc.). The property owner would have the right to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. Staff sees this process as a cleaner approach to the issue rather than an annual mass mailing. Staff and Commission Discussion Comments included but were not limited to: • If properties that receive citations are confirmed, why wait until the annual renewal period to evaluate the property. Addressing the issues immediately would make more sense, and waiting until the year is up is not the normal way to address violations. • It is very important in residential zoning that VHRs match what the full-time residents can do. • The number of renters and number of vehicles should be the same as the full-time property owners/long-term renters. • Parking issue seems unworkable, unless enforcement took place. The biggest issue would be to retain the prohibition of on-street parking for VHRs. Public Comment Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Chair Hull stated that because the Planning Commission is limiting the proposed code amendment to VHRs for eight or fewer occupants, no public comment will be taken regarding VHRs for nine or more occupants. Bettye Harrison/town resident is a member of the Estes Park Vacation Renters Association. She requested the Commission not move forward with the requirement for neighbor notices, as this could be used as a method for unfounded complaints. The initial intent was a best-practice and common courtesy for neighboring property owners to know who to contact about problems before contact the local authorities. If required, the notification should only be used for notification, not an outlet for comments. The Association was concerned that the annual licensing process would become part of the complaint process, placing undue burden on staff, police, and the court system. She stated onerous rules and regulations would damage the tourist industry in the Estes Valley if a license was revoked mid-year after reservations were already confirmed. Guests to the area make reservations (VHR, flights, car rentals, etc.) far in advance and Estes Park would feel negative consequences to its tourism industry. The Association believes if neighbors are allowed to comment prior to the issuance of an operating permit, the property owner is essentially guilty before proven innocent. The Association encouraged focusing on an enforceable noise ordinance. They do not support a limit on the number of units allowed. NOTE: Planner Kleisler stated the proposed neighbor notification is intended to be a courtesy notification, with no comment period allowed as part of this process. Complaints would not be accepted as part of this process. Heidi Welsch/out of state vacation home owner stated the proposed amendment is a balanced solution. She wanted to go on record stating such in case the County Staff/Commissioners did not agree. If the neighbor notification could generate objections to the VHR, a major backlash could occur. She related requiring this type of neighbor notification to being stricter than having a registered sex offender in the neighborhood. Registered sex offenders are not required to notify the neighbors that they are living in the neighborhood. She saw this as potentially being very damaging for neighborhood relationships. She was opposed to limiting the number of VHRs. When she purchased her home, she had the legal right to use it as a VHR, and her property rights would be violated if the rules changed. She was concerned about deed restrictions being placed on homes regarding the right to use them as VHRs. She stated she was confused about the complaint process, and whether or not one violation could result in the revocation of a license. NOTE: Commissioner Klink reminded the audience the Planning Commission is the recommending body, and public comments should also be addressed at the upcoming Town Board and County Commission meetings. Eric Blackhurst/local realtor agreed with Ms. Welsch regarding the notification process allowing comment. He questioned whether or not staff or the Commission has given question to covenant controlled areas. There are a number of developments in the Estes Valley that were built specifically to be VHRs. He stated the vacation rental business began in the 1870s. In 1998 a 1% growth cap was proposed and defeated. Second-home owners make up about 42% of the Estes Valley population. He was concerned about code enforcement not being effective unless the officers were working nights, weekends, and holidays. Mr. Blackhurst questioned the criteria for complaints and hearings; would an operating permit run with the property via a deed restriction, and if so, who would be monitoring the deeds; if inspections are required, who will be conducting the inspections and will they take place in a timely manner so the property owners can be issued their operating permit. Using your property as a VHR is currently a use by right and not subject to review. He suggested that before the Commission makes a recommendation to the Town Board and County Commission, they consider the unintended consequences. There are people in the Estes Valley that make their living selling and/or managing property and are very familiar with how it all works. It is not an easy process that can be controlled by a part-time code compliance officer. VHRs are important to the economic fabric of our community and for those that have invested in property in the Estes Valley. Kaylyn Kruger/Estes Area Lodging Association representative stated this group supports the comments made by the Estes Park Vacation Renters Association. Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Durango Steele/local property owner agreed with Mr. Blackhurst’s comments. She is a realtor and understands the importance of property rights. She stated the majority of VHR owners have never had a complaint on their property. She was concerned that special regulations were being considered for VHRs that were a use by right, considering it discrimination. Estes Park has historically been a vacation destination. She cautioned the Commission about placing a cap on the number of VHRs allowed, since it could become a legal issue. Mick Scapella/out-of-town vacation home owner stated as a VHR owner, he has been made to feel like a criminal. The property rights of neighbors seem to supersede his rights since he has a vacation rental. If a property is being managed properly and consistently, there shouldn’t be any problems. He stated it would be a burden on him to have to notify neighbors, as he already knows them and doesn’t have any problems with them, nor they with him. He cares about this community but would be willing to sell and find a community that wants him. Seth Smith/local business owner, property manager, and realtor stated putting cap on the number of VHRs allowed would drastically change the supply and demand, and the unintended consequences would be huge. He stated what should be considered is a response to violations, e.g. enforcement. VHRs are a part of Estes Park neighborhoods and property management plays a big part. He was supportive of the proposed information sheet. Mike Richardson/president of the Estes Park Board of Realtors (EPBOR) stated most of the 54 members of this board have lived in the area for quite some time. They work hard to protect home ownership and property investment. He stated the problem is not the lack of code regulations, but lack of enforcement. Placing more restrictions on VHRs is not the answer. The common denominator with those both for and against VHRs has been code enforcement, or lack thereof. No one wants to live next to an out-of-control VHR, but knowing what the actual number of complaints received is to help assess the effectiveness of code enforcement. Estes Park has always been a tourist town. If we cannot accommodate our guests, they will not come. Mr. Richardson stated there are two different types of overnight guests; some prefer hotels and others prefer VHRs. The EPBOR is opposed to limiting the number of VHRs. The Board would be willing to share their knowledge regarding VHRs. He reiterated the need for more code enforcement, not more code regulations. Warren Clinton/local accommodations facility owner stated there is a need for VHRs. His motel has 31 units and can accommodate 138 people. He consistently received inquiries from potential guests wanting accommodations for large groups. He stated he feels comfortable hosting groups up to 20 people, but any larger than that is not beneficial to his facility as a whole. Last summer he requested his front desk staff to track how many calls they received requesting group accommodations. From the beginning of May to the middle of June, over 70 inquiries were from people inquiring about group accommodations (25-60 guests). Many visitors to the Estes Park area want a home-like atmosphere that VHRs provide. Neil Standard/local resident stated he moved to Estes Park from the Blackhawk/Central City area. He lived in that area when gaming was approved, and many property owners began building VHRs to rent on weekends. He stated his subdivision increased their dues to hire an attorney, placed a cap on the number of VHRs in the subdivision, signed an agreement with the local Sheriff’s office regarding complaints, etc. The ordinances being proposed are to protect VHR owners, and needs to be presented as such. Public comment closed. Staff and Commission Discussion Comments from Commissioners were as follows: • Commissioner Klink was opposed to placing a cap on the number of VHRs. He was concerned about the unintended consequences to placing a limit on the number of VHRs in the Estes Valley. Although having a VHR is a use by right, there are still restrictions for properties in designated zone districts. Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 February 16, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall • Commissioner White stated use by right does not mean rights are open ended. She stated it would be very difficult to put a cap on the number of VHRs because we really don’t know how many are out there. We know how many licensed VHRs there are, but do not know how many unlicensed homes are in the Estes Valley. A cap would be something to reconsider after we have more information as to how many VHRs are in the Estes Valley. She would consider placing a cap if we reach a tipping point. Information regarding enforcement is limited because the process of submitting a complaint and the follow-up/resolution process is unclear and lacking. • Commissioner Moon would support a valley-wide cap. He does not see it as violating property rights, and the idea of limiting a certain level of use is not different than zoning. He was opposed to seeing a high number of VHRs in the community. If a cap were placed on VHRs, it could be revisited on an annual basis, but would allow some control over how large the VHR business becomes. • Commissioner Murphree was concerned about how you could tell some property owners something was allowed, but telling others it wasn’t allowed. America is the land of the free, and placing a cap on VHRs is not a viable decision. • Chair Hull was opposed to placing a cap on VHRs. All property owners pay property tax and have property rights. Of all other communities researched, only one has a cap. She stated VHRs have become an international issue, and are not specific to Estes Park. Good enforcement is the key. NOTE: Planner Kleisler stated the number of complaints to police for noise or nuisance from vacation rentals is low. Planner Kleisler stated the next steps would be to finish drafting the code revisions, including changes to the notification process, and route the revised code amendment to the affected agencies/departments. If the Commission chooses to continue this item to the March meeting, the staff report and ordinance would be available approximately one week prior to the March 15th meeting. With the joint work session scheduled for March 30th, there would be time for the Town Board and County Commission to review the draft prior to their next meetings. He stated this joint meeting is separate from the task force the county is facilitating. It was moved and seconded (Murphree/Klink) to continue the proposed code amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code and Estes Park Municipal Code relating to vacation home rentals to the next regular meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and the motion passed unanimously with two absent. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE (EVDC) RELATING TO EMPLOYEE HOUSING REGULATIONS. Town Administrator Frank Lancaster addressed the Planning Commission, stating this is a project that has been in the works for quite a while. Although it is a minor code revision, it is important to help alleviate seasonal housing needs. The current code allows an employer to house their employees on their property, but they have to be their employees, employed at that location. Staff is requesting to remove that restriction. There are currently three businesses wanting to add employee housing, but may not need all of the housing units and would be willing to lease them to other businesses for their seasonal employees. Some businesses need seasonal housing for their employees but do not have the facilities capable of providing it. Mr. Lancaster stated this proposed code revision is a way to look at the bigger picture of the critical need for employee housing, and provides a good opportunity for business owners that have the space for employee housing and also helps those that don’t, by allowing other businesses employees to rent from them. Staff and Commission Discussion All comments from the Commissioners were in favor of the proposed code amendment. There was general consensus among the Commission that making small moves to address immediate housing needs is beneficial. Public Comment Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 5 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall encourage redevelopment in the Estes Valley. Director Chilcott stated staff did not see any disadvantages with this code amendment. Public Comment None. Staff and Commission Discussion None. It was moved and seconded (Hills/Murphree) to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code relating to density regulations for residential and accommodation units to the Town Board and County Commissioners and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. 5. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE & ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VACATION HOME RENTALS Chair Hull stated the Board would only be dealing with rentals of eight persons or less, and rentals for nine or more would be addressed after Larimer County task force has made recommendations. Planner Kleisler stated that the Planning Commission, Town Board, and Larimer County have had a long conversation about this topic over the last year, including four public forums. This is the third Planning Commission hearing on this issue. The Town Board and County Commission requested the Planning Commission look at the ordinance suggested at the February meeting recommend approval or denial of such an ordinance. This is a continuation of the February hearing. It would apply to the entire Estes Valley. Section 5.1.B of EVDC regulates bed & breakfast inns and vacation home rentals within the Estes Valley. It begins with general applicable standards which apply to both bed & breakfast inns and vacation home rentals. Some of the proposed changes clean up wordage to give each ordinance a title. The Planning Commission did not opt to not expand the area of where a local contact can reside; they need to be within the Estes Valley within 30 minutes of the rental property. Violations is a new section which points to existing remedies provided within the code. One clear feedback received is the need for more enforcement, particularly of current regulations. There has been discussion of some type of review or hold on a license on an annual basis during renewal, if violations are attached to that property. The Planning Commission also expressed a desire to not have to wait to the end of the year to resolve some of the issues in regards to licenses. At any particular time, with the assistance of the Town attorney, the code compliance officer can site a property into court for violations allowing for revocation of the license. At any time, the decision-making body may revoke the Annual Operating Permit for twelve months in accordance with section 12.4.A.2 of the EVDC. In this Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 6 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall case, the decision-making body would be staff. If these changes are approved, a appeals process (to the Planning Commission) needs to be added. As is currently written, appeals go to the Board of Adjustment. Staff is not limited to the two revisions so far described in dealing with violations. They can use any of the remedies in chapter 12 of the EVDC. There was some discussion by staff and the Commission about term of revocation of the license. Section 5.1.B.1.c discusses some operational restrictions in regards to residential character. The proposed amendment adds implementing quiet hours for outdoor hot tub use. Director Chilcott commented on residential character. She is concerned about enforceability. A general rule is that if it is something extremely objective it is enforceable. It is important to recognize there are some sections of proposed code regulations that are more subjective and they will be more difficult to enforce. For example, the statement on residential character is subjective and could be difficult to determine if a violation has occurred. Attorney White clarified that you are allowing the vacation home rental use in residential zone areas. The vacation home rental use is allowed in one section, and this section states it must fall in line with residential use. It makes it difficult to enforce. This language is from the first attempt at regulating vacation home rentals and they are now doing a better job of categorizing the objectionable aspects that hadn’t been done at the start. Planner Kleisler described the proposed section 5.1.B.1.d requiring a notice posted on site listing specific requirements/restrictions for renters including but not limited to; property line boundaries so they don’t trespass on adjacent properties; address for emergency responders; name and number of the local contact; the max number of occupants and vehicles allowed at the site; safety information such as gas/water shutoff; etc. Staff is working to craft a template that can be adjusted to a specific rental in plain language. Director Chilcott had a question for Attorney White. If additional items are identified that should be added to the notice, would it be better to have this list as part of staff policy or to require additional code amendments? Attorney White stated that they can be added either way. Commissioner Moon stated he doesn’t understand why a requirement on exterior lighting is present. It is a code compliance issue for property owners and not the renters. Discussion occurred about guests not understanding the dark sky standards in the Estes Valley and the need to inform them. Planner Kleisler would provide user friendly language to remind guests to shut off exterior lights. In close quarters, some exterior lighting illuminates adjacent properties. Even if it is an older cabin whose lights do not comply with current code, they still need to turn off the lights. This would not force property owners to change their lighting to comply with current standards, only to encourage compliance with the dark sky ordinance. Commissioner Schneider asked about including the location of other safety equipment with the location of fire extinguishers, defibrillators, first aid kits, etc. Director Chilcott explained it may be easier to make the code simpler and easier to understand by writing policy that spells Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 7 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall out the requirements of the list. The Commission could consider that option. The code could just state that information shall be provided that contains property owner information, development code requirements, etc. It would be more general. Discussion included but was not limited to: • Concern over how that would relate to the violation process. • Concern over whether Town and Larimer County would be held to the same standard if part of the requirements are Town policy, not Estes Valley Development Code. • If these requirements are listed in the EVDC as it is currently proposed, if the notice misses an item it would be considered a code violation. • The Commission wants the items listed in the code and as specific as can be made to lessen confusion by the guests. • Fire extinguishers are not required in residential dwellings. A posting stating “Fire Extinguishers: None” would be in compliance. • Discussion of where fire extinguishers are required. • The Larimer County task force may provide more direction on this. • Including fire extinguishers on the list may remind property owners it would be a good idea to have one. • Where fire extinguishers appear on the list, perhaps with the gas/water shutoff. Planner Kleisler stated local contact information will include license and permit number to ease the code compliance process. Neighbor notification would be required for all existing and new vacation home rentals. Either at the time of the initial permit or sometime this year for existing vacation rentals there needs to be a courtesy mailing to neighbors within 100 feet stating the name of the local contact person. This is not opening up the opportunity to question the property owners. It is meant to make it easier for neighbors to know who to call if there are issues with the vacation rental property. The contact information for a property is public information; however, providing a courtesy mailing will make it easier to access the information. Planner Kleisler stated they’ve been attempting to address number of bedrooms listed versus number of bedrooms advertised during the annual licensing process. Staff checks the Larimer County records to determine if the number of bedrooms stated in the license match the number of bedrooms in the County Assessor’s records. No on-site bedroom inspections are taking place at this time. The Town Board could decide to adopt the dwelling life safety survey allowing for building code inspection of vacation rentals. It is his understanding the Board of Appeals is recommending that the Town Board postpone the adoption of that local amendment to the International Property Maintenance Code. Planning Kleisler stated that the changes to licensing fees is allowing them to hire additional staff to allow for additional customer service. If this ordinance passes, staff will provide a welcome packet to new vacation rental properties. The packet will include the list of notices and other information specific for that rental, e.g. courtesy mailing materials, etc. Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 8 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commissioner Moon wanted clarity about the Town heading in the direction of no inspections for vacation rental homes. There are lot of safety requirements that would be expected in an accommodations property (smoke detectors), and currently there is no way in the code to ensure that these things are present in a vacation rental. He feels that a compliance inspection would not force the property to upgrade to code on most issues, and there is no way to enforce that. The exceptions being the items required by state law (CO detectors, smoke detectors, etc.). Planner Kleisler stated there was discussion from last month’s meeting regarding parking standards. Public comment indicated they wanted to create a new, more viable standard. Currently vacation rentals are allowed no more than three vehicles at the site. Current vacation home owners requested that the same parking standards that apply to all residential zone districts apply to vacation homes in those zone districts. One exception would be the prohibition of on-street parking. Staff recommends that the on-street parking prohibition remain in place. Planner Kleisler stated he spoke with the Town Attorney and other parties regarding resort cabins. There is confusion over this issue. For example the Black Canyon Inn properties being constructed may have full-time owners or short-term renters. Code does not allow that in the A zone district. There is confusion over why this is allowed in A-1 and not the A zone districts. The initial intent was to encourage vacation home rentals in the A-1 zone district and promote only high intensity use in the A zone district. Market demand is increasing toward the low intensity vacation home. Staff recommends allowing short-term rentals in the A– Accommodation zone district to remove the confusion. Planner Kleisler stated that some of the proposed amendments are to clean up the language. Staff is deleting reference to a vacation rental being allowed as an accessory use in residential zones. They are currently allowed as a principal use. If it is allowed as a principal use, it is allowed as an accessory use. This does not impact any of the standards. Planner Kleisler stated that section 12.7 deals with enforcement procedures. Town Attorney White recommended that language be added to allow the local contact to receive the written notice of violation. Currently the code requires code compliance officers to give property owners 15 days to correct the violation unless it is an emergency matter. That makes it difficult to address an issue when the renters are in and out in less than that time. Staff recommends changing the existing 15-day notice from a requirement to an option, by changing the wording from shall to may. Planner Kleisler stated at today’s study session, the Planning Commission discussed at length about placing a potential cap on the annual permits in the Estes Valley. They recommend adopting a cap of 10% of housing units, which is 749 housing units in the Estes Valley. If the cap is reached, there are two options: (1) Staff could begin a waitlist or, (2) Town Board could Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 9 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall increase that cap, probably at the recommendation of the Planning Commission. There are an estimated 500 or so vacation rentals in the Estes Valley, both licensed and unlicensed. Staff and Commission Discussion Discussion included but was not limited to: • The Board believed that the 10% cap was to be reviewed annually, not just when we’ve reached the limit. • As a percentage, the number of the cap will change continually as the number of homes in Estes Valley changes as development occurs. • Attorney White felt that the Board needs to set a number representing the cap in the number of vacation rental licenses. It can be difficult to define a “housing unit” and a percentage changes the actual number of allowed licenses all the time. There needs to be an actual number that staff can act upon. He suggested picking a number based on the data provided and add language about reviewing that every year to see if that 10% remains appropriate. • Looking at the data they could just say 750 vacation rentals for now and reexamine it next year. • Census data gets updated every few years and occurs on a regular basis. • Commissioner Moon suggested using the electric meter count as a means of tracking the number of homes in Estes Valley. The utilities department would know which meters are being charged commercial vs residential rates. He hoped that when they come back to this they can have a better, crisper definition of the numbers involved. Public Comment Chair Hull opened the floor to public comment. She reminded the public that they currently only accepting comments on vacation rentals of parties of eight persons or less. She stated that over the last month, people approached her to state that they feel criminalized by the establishment of all of these rules. Chair Hull clarified that rules criminalize you only when you break them and that they exist for a reason. Johanna Darden/local resident: She urges a cap be placed on the number of vacation rentals, and it be a specific number (i.e. her hope would be 600 total), not a percentage. Her concern is a change in neighborhoods and their character and quality of life for permanent residents and long-term renters. Short-term renters do not come with a sense of community. People who have applied for licenses under the law should be included under the cap. Those who have disobeyed the law and are currently operating illegally should not be brought under the cap. If there are licenses remaining under the cap other vacation rental property owners should be considered under a first come, first served basis. Enforcement should be taken seriously. Eric Blackhurst/local resident: He does not have or manage any vacation rental properties, but it is an economic fact of our community. He believes the Board has been placed in a difficult situation. It is a diverse, unique industry. It is an industry unique to the destination and it is Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 10 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall almost impossible to regulate. There are two different sets of standards, long-term rentals versus short-term rentals. There are issues of legal protection. Property owners have a different standard versus vacation renters. It is an impossible task to regulate, particularly when authorized by covenants or when property is purchased specifically in areas allowed for vacation rental properties. Where do long-term renters and second homeowners fit into this? Are they going to be regulated to the same standards as vacation rentals? When does it make sense to regulate this industry that varies so much even from subdivision to subdivision? How do you know if a violation has been responded to within 30 minutes? It could be dealt with over the phone in which case the local contact doesn’t really need to be within that 30-minute drive time. How do we know what the violation is? Is it a violation or a complaint? Can the authority in charge revoke a license on a compliant versus an actual violation? Twelve months on a violation is a long time. The penalty for selling liquor to a minor is a 15-day suspension of the liquor license. Registered sex offenders are not required to notify neighbors. These proposed regulations make vacation rentals more onerous than a pedophile. He urged the Commission to be cautious in what you recommend to the governing bodies because you are placed in a very untenable position on an industry that is extremely difficult to regulate and has had very few complaints. Holly Moore/local resident: She shared some of Eric’s concerns and those in the community. She was concerned about the balance between vacation homes and residential properties. Her primary concerns are with enforcement. This is a difficult situation and very complicated. The Board needs to look at different ways of regulation than what has been suggested so far. What are the consequences on a property owner that has a vacation rental without a license and how to we identify that person? The proposed amendment says that staff can withhold a license until the violation is corrected, but some things can be corrected almost immediately. In regards to withholding the license for 12 months, what constitutes a violation? She is concerned that it would be enforced on one complaint versus a pattern of complaints. A pattern implies the owner needs correction. Her biggest concern is how do we know who is doing this and who is not doing this and how do we control that? Chair Hull stated that during the study session they brought up the issues raised by the last speaker. They’d talked about the possibility of a point system attached to the severity of the violation. They discussed the potential of a website where violations could be recorded. The Commission is trying to determine a process to track violations. Ed Peterson/representing Estes Park Vacation Rental Owner’s Association: They want to be solution oriented. They understand there can be issues and want to solve those issues in an amicable way. He does not believe there are as many issues as have been addressed but understands the need for planning for problems that may occur. Posting a violation is an option, but if you are not at your rental for a couple of weeks you might not be aware. He stated the issues are being made out to be bigger than they really are. His group shared vacation home rental information from Salt Lake City and Lake Tahoe, who have mastered this over the years. These cities are larger but have similar demographics. Staff has not referred to Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 11 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall these recommendations. Staff has spent thousands of dollars researching and hiring people to come in to run meetings. It is unconscionable. It is time to slow down and figure out a plan that makes sense for everybody. Rebecca Urquhart/town resident: Everyone has said that we need more enforcement. She does not believe that full-time and short-term residents should be treated the same way. A resident can be talked to and is unlikely to engage in undesirable behavior night after night. If they do there are methods to address that under the law. That happens with short-term renters. She is concerned that the code offers only one remedy if there is a confirmed and proven violation. She has lived in two different neighborhoods. She or her neighbors have filed 20-25 complaints, but not one violation has been found. The Town has never found a violation since this code was adopted, outside of not having a license. A violation will never be proven and end up resulting in enforcement. She has collected recordings and data about vacation rental violations. She believes the police do not even put it into the record that they have been called. She was told that what she has collected is not evidence. The owners are almost never informed that there were issues. She filed 17 complaints about the property adjacent to her and the owners were informed only twice. We need something with teeth to it. Someone who calls multiple times should not be ignored. A point system might work. She’s called the property manager without success. How do you prove that you’ve taken the necessary steps if the other side claims innocence? We need something more than a verified complaint that has a remedy. We need a way to actually take action; otherwise, it is business as usual for the people with vacation rentals. She would suggest having a standard, such as excessive undisputed complaints instead of proven violation. She is concerned over the discretionary language that is in the code. Ed Peterson: He agreed with Ms. Urquhart about fines and revocation of licenses. He was supportive of issuing enforcement tickets on the spot to the violators causing the problems, similar to getting a ticket for a traffic violation. If the violations continue, the owner should be fined as well. Something needs to be done to address the issue beyond revoking the license. He thinks we need something that addresses the issue directly. Bill Urquhart/town resident: He thought the study session was amazing today. He thought Commissioner Moon’s idea of using the internet to handle communication was great. We can generate data out of it. When he was first involved with this issue he was head of an HOA with covenants against rentals of less than two weeks. Procedurally, it became really difficult to enforce and he reached out to the Town for help. One particular owner was telling neighbors that everybody was friends and family. He wonders if the staff will have a right to audit. As a neighbor, you have no idea who is in the property. What rules should apply to them? If you advertise that you are renting short-term should the presumption be that guests are short- term renters? He is trying to look at it from a resident’s standpoint not as a theoretical exercise. He couldn’t agree more with Mr. Peterson. Rolling in and revoking the license is a heavy move. If you can do fines or something smaller, then you avoid going to the top level of penalty out the gate. Revoking a license is a severe penalty and may create reluctance to use Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 12 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall that penalty. At the study session it was mentioned licensed vacation rentals make up 4.7% of housing units in Estes Valley. Less then 10% of noise violations were out of vacation rentals. The conclusion was that noise was a low problem for vacation rentals. On a relative basis it could be twice as high. The data does not support the conclusion, in his opinion. It may make sense to specify when the 15-day period should be applied for code violations (weeds, etc.). Most renters will only be there for 2-3 nights. A website is a step in the right direction. The neighbor has only one right currently, to make a complaint and submit evidence. They have no right to follow-up on their complaint. They aren’t even a party in a continuing dispute. There is no right to appeal or to a hearing (the neighbor doesn’t have the right to attend or be notified even if the rental owner must attend a hearing due to the complaint). “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there often is.” The enforcement issue is very difficult. What is evidence? What is enforcement on a practical matter? What is a foundation we can expect? What happens here will be followed by the task force on larger homes. It is disheartening that no inspection for health and safety is being recommended. For the town to issue commercial licenses without taking any effort to physically inspect even for just carbon monoxide detectors is pretty risky. He provided the case where he filed a series of complaints (two years ago) with the Town. Unknown to them a hearing had taken place in late 2013. It was determined there was no violation and no evidence was officially made by the Town (March 2014). He was told by the Town attorney they had no right of standing, right of appeal (April 2014), and the Colorado administrative procedure act does not apply. Bob Leavitt/Carriage Hills: He looked through the database of permits and licenses and noticed that a lot of licenses do not have a local contact. How do we ensure that we do have a local contact? Many regulations depend on having a local contact. It is time to put this information online. Neighbors would be able to reach out to the owner even if the owner lives out of state. Many of the owners are oblivious that there is a problem. Most neighbors don’t know who to call. When we have fire restrictions, it would be good to get that info out to everybody especially vacation renters, so they know open fires and fireworks are illegal. Not having any way to inspect homes for code compliance really will be a problem. He cncouraged the Commissioners to send something to Town Board saying that we really need it. Johanna Darden: There are other violations that the sound ordinance does not take into consideration, e.g. bass vibrations. She hoped that something will be added to the suggestions to deal with those kinds of issues as well. Greg Perrotto/town resident: He is the owner of four vacation rentals. He has hosted family reunions for the past eight years. He is very involved with his rentals and is concerned about the thirty-minute response time. He is 45 minutes away, but when he gets a call he responds immediately. He has a great rapport with his neighbors. He thinks something else needs to be considered for the contact person. He prefers to be completely involved in his rentals. He is concerned that some vacation rental owners will be regulated out of business. Some of the regulations are completely overboard. He thinks spot fines are hitting the nail on the head. It Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 13 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall deals directly with the problem. Follow-through should include notification of the violation to the property owner. Signage is good. He is strict on his policies. He has not rented to people if he was concerned there could be issues. He believes these notifications should be short and sweet and clearly show that they are requirements for the Town of Estes Park. The regulations will be ignored if they take too long to read. Seth Smith/Ponderosa Realty and Management: He is both a real estate and vacation rental manager. He talked about the GuestStream software used to manage multiple properties online that was brought up in the study session. One of the things that is lost is how adversely the cap would affect Town. We don’t know how many rental properties we have now. The goal is to have compliance. He does not think the cap gets to that goal. It is arbitrary to limit something we don’t have a full handle on. He doesn’t believe the Planning Commission has enough information to set a cap. His business has an online database of every rental property and online marketing that shows when it is vacant. We open these properties up to crime by showing where these properties are and indicating when these properties are vacant. He is in the middle of every transaction that happens in his business (owner, guest, him). They send a four-page letter to the guests. Most don’t read it. He stated the notices in the rentals should be brief, listing the most important items, making it clear that these are regulations put in place by the Town. Jane Livingstone/town resident: This is an incredible task before the Commission. Compliance is the main issue, and it needs to be addressed with the guests that are misbehaving. If they know they are going to get a ticket or pay a fine, it matters. This is different than threatening to withhold a deposit. Her vacation rental owner group has proposed a process for enforcement and the license that is similar to the liquor license in Town. The liquor license has layers for violations and increasing fines. It is something that warrants further discussion on all sides. It is important we get this right. We had been on a path of what we could agree on. Now we are back to going back and forth on this issue. She would like to see balance and harmony come to this process. Last September, she did a calculation on the financial impact of vacation rentals in Estes Park. She used an economic study from 2011 and did some extrapolation. She figured that guests conservatively spend $27 million in local small businesses. That is not counting lodging, taxes or the people who are employed to service the guests. Over-regulating and decreasing their number will hurt those small businesses. It is painful to watch them lose their small business. Think about this on a broad spectrum and think about the broad impact of how it will affect the Town now and in the future. Holly Moore/town resident: She believes the 10% cap is not relevant to the regulation and the problems that occur in the community. It is more about creating a balance between residential and vacation accommodations. Right now that balance is beyond unhealthy. We rely heavily on the tourist dollar and are dangerously close to damaging it. Economy runs on people power. We can’t attract the people who will support a year-round economy if we are expecting them to live out of a car. She is on the verge of losing her long-term rental because the owner is considering making it a vacation rental. She supported having a cap on the Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 14 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall number of vacation home rentals. With careful and considered application of enforcement and regulation we can achieve that balance and prosper with both a year-round economy and be a prime and desirable vacation destination. We can’t provide the services that people expect when they visit here if we don’t have people who live here full-time. Mary Murphy/county resident: She is a local realtor in town. This is an issue of enforcement. If we had a compliance officer that worked weekends and evenings that would solve a lot of the problems that have been discussed. This Commission is dealing with enforcement and how we are dealing with vacation rentals going to the future. She stated her main concerns are that there is too much on the plate. She does not know if there is any other action where a business or person can be disqualified in their business based on someone else’s actions. Selling to a minor is something the liquor store has control over, but a vacation rental owner doesn’t have control over a renter. It is appropriate to deal with that renter, but it is not fair to punish the homeowner later on down the line. Punishing the property owner for the renter’s actions are two separate things. Fred Mares/town resident: He thanked the Commissioners for their hard work on this topic. Enforcement is a big deal. If current enforcement was effective we wouldn’t be talking this. A lot of issues being discussed are outside this Board’s purview. At the study session, Commissioner Moon presented a website data collection and distribution system that would provide a database for everyone concerned (neighbors, owners, managers). People have been sharing what they feel is happening or their fears about what may happen. The Town doesn’t have firm numbers. We are governing based on what it feels like, not to the data. Along with recommendations on code changes, he requests the Commissioners send a list of the ancillary issues to the County Commissioners and the Town Board, so everybody can understand how the pieces fit together. It can be difficult to get everybody to sit down and talk about their piece of the issue. There have been pros and cons on the cap on the number of licenses. There needs to be a defensible rational for having a limit. He’s heard reasons to have and not have a limit. He believes the reason we need some kind of cap is because we don’t know what is going on. Vacation rentals is an industry that is growing nationwide in double digits. Because the Town and County have chosen to not enforce anything on the books, we have no idea of what has been going on in the past. We need some kind of limit until we know what we are really dealing with. Mr. Mares recommended a time period of more than a year to reevaluate the cap, if one is put into place. All of what is being proposed is not in place yet. We do not know in a year where that number should be moved to. We need to collect data and start assessing where we are and where we want to be. He suggested moving it to two or three years between assessments. He agreed with Attorney White’s comments. He is concerned with attaching a percentage to the number of dwellings in town, and would recommend using a hard number. He thought using 500 for the cap is a good place to start, but may be too low. If there is a limit, it creates an incentive to be license and stayed licensed. This industry will start to have a reason to be self-policing when they haven’t been. He questioned how effective the new enforcement process would be, and what impacts there would be to workforce housing. What do you say to a family looking for a nice neighborhood for raising Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 15 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall kids that doesn’t compete with tourism? We have no control over what goes on in our neighborhoods. We are having to build more housing for workforce. We shouldn’t be taking residences away on one hand and paying to replace them on the other. Kenneth Arnold/town resident: He is on the Estes Area Lodging Association board. They are very inclusive with all businesses including vacation rentals. As we grow this is an important issue. He believes communication with his guests coming in is so important. He is his own code enforcement officer. It is important that we educate these people about the rules and enforce those rules. If you don’t enforce the rules, it creates upset guests who don’t understand why someone is being allowed to break those rules. We need code enforcement & fines with teeth. His main concern is noise. If one of the neighboring properties is noisy he has numbers to call and they would respond because they also don’t want a noisy party disturbing the rest of their guests. He wants to have important rules and have them enforced. Loosen up on the rules that aren’t so important. Jenny Hutchinson/county resident: She was forced into long-term rental after losing her home in 2008. She used to live in a historic neighborhood near Spruce and Lawn Lane with 10 properties that have all become vacation rentals now. It is a form of abuse when you have vacation rentals next door to you that aren’t in compliance. You don’t know how it feels until it happens to you. She read a list of posts on the Estes Park Housing Facebook page. The posts were from a span of less than a week. The posts are all listings of people that are looking for homes/rentals in Estes Park and their difficulty in finding such. Public comment closed. Chair Hull called for a five-minute recess. Staff and Commission Discussion None. It was moved and seconded (Hills/White) to recommend approval of the code amendments as presented to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners with the findings that the amendments comply with the EVDC standard for review for text amendments, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. There was discussion by the Commissioners on whether we have the necessary data to impose a fixed number as a cap. The argument was that we needed to set the precedence today that there will be a cap. The current suggestion is far enough ahead that it does not impose on business opportunities while we gather data for a more accurate number. It was moved and seconded (Moon/Hills) to recommend approval to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners to establish a Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 16 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall maximum limit of 700 on the annual operating license/permits issued for vacation rentals, and to recommend that the Planning Commission revisit in a year to recommend changes to the cap, and the motion passed 5-1 with one absent. Commissioner Murphree was against. There was discussion by the Commission on the issue of compliance inspections. They could recommend the Town Board seriously consider compliance inspections (for safety, fire extinguishers, carbon monoxide detectors, smoke detectors, bedrooms). Attorney White stated the current proposal for inspections is a local amendment to the International Property Maintenance Code, created at the direction of the Town Board. It was stated that the Board of Appeals is recommending not to include the vacation rental provisions. It would be appropriate that this Commission convey their desire through their chair that it be included in the adoption of the International Building Codes before the March 22nd meeting, as adoption of the building codes is on the agenda at that time. It was moved and seconded (Moon/White) to authorize the chairperson of the Planning Commission to convey to the Town Board that it is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the inspection language in the International Property Maintenance Code be included as a local amendment to ensure the inspection of vacation rentals for basic life safety requirements, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. Commissioner Schneider stated that public comment indicated that we needed something to punish the renter. We can’t just punish the owners for what occurs on a nightly basis. Attorney White stated that was already present in the code through noise and trespassing ordinances. The thing to remember is that enforcement is not easy. When you have enforcement you have to be willing to go to court. Everybody has the right to contest the enforcement action. You have the right to go all the way through the system before you are required to pay the fine. The trespass ordinance is the easy one. The noise ordinance has some problems and is being redrafted right now. He reminded the Commission that with the Town there is limited jurisdiction with the Town Municipal Court. If they live out of state, they don’t have to do anything with the ticket. If it is a local person we have some ability, but what can actually be done is limited. Larimer County is even more limited, as it doesn’t have any powers with a court. Enforcement is a complex issue. He hopes staff for both the County and the Town can focus on enforcement and have a positive impact. Discussion included but was not limited to: • Commissioner White stated that some property owners are already addressing the issue of enforcement on the renters by including their own punishments for violations within the rental agreements providing their own self-policing. • Commissioner Murphree recommended that a list be created of individuals who have violated rental agreements in the past that all vacation rental owners can refer to and prevent those problem renters from renting again in Estes Park. Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 17 March 15, 2016 Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall • Comment from the audience was that vacation rental owners need help from the police. If they receive a ticket from the police, most renters will pay the fine and alter their behavior. They don’t have to be told that they don’t have to pay the fine if they live out of state. Planner Kleisler stated that there was one request that had not be discussed by the Commission today. It is more of an administrative item. Some individuals have requested that there be an online map with contact information for rentals and license number. It has been requested numerous times. There have also been concerns for safety in having that information be available, even though there are websites out there that do that now. The Commissioners could recommend the Town Board direct the staff to create such an item. It is not something that staff would do without such direction given the concerns expressed. Discussion included but was not limited to: We don’t yet know the issues with releasing information online. There are a lot of privacy concerns. This goes back to the comments that this is more criminal than what we expect from a sex offender. Our intent is not to punish vacation home owners. There is no way the Commissioners can address every issue related to vacation rentals. We need to first focus on the basics. If we do this correctly, Estes Park could be the flagship of how to handle vacation rentals for Colorado. The Commissioners feel their hands are somewhat tied until recommendations come back from the Larimer County task force. The Board hopes that the public expresses their concerns and participates with the Larimer County task force. April 4th is the application deadline to apply to be on the task force. 6. REPORTS A. Director Chilcott reported that the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment approved the height, river setback, and exterior lighting variance requests for the Rocky Mountain Performing Arts Center on February 22nd, 2016. B. Director Chilcott reported that CBO Birchfield gave an update to the Town Board of Trustees regarding the 2015 International Building Codes with local amendments. C. Director Chilcott reported that the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners are in the process of creating a vacation home rental task force. They will be conducting a joint teleconference call in mid-April to appoint that task force. D. Director Chilcott reported on the following flood recovery and mitigation updates: a. Environmental Planner Kurtz reported that a public meeting was held on March 4th, which was well attended and is available for viewing online at www.estes.org/floodrecovery. More outreach meetings and materials are planned. b. Environmental Planner Kurtz reported that the Hydroplant Bank Stabilization project has completed phase I with a focus on fish habitat, healthy stream and bank stabilization. Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes American Planning Association Planning — February 2016 Could You Bnb My Neighbor? A planner's take on the sharing economy. By Jeffrey Goodman Since I live in New Orleans, I live near a bar. People are always walking by my house to this bar, so perhaps one day I start offering beer to passersby from my porch. Maybe I sell a beer or two — I could always use the money — and people here have always sold drinks as a hustle during Mardi Gras, so what is the difference? Perhaps eventually I sell beer all the time and people start coming to my house instead of the bar and maybe I pick up a sponsorship and a little press. Soon, people are coming from miles around to my local alcohol board, or my zoning board, or my neighborhood association, and argue that since my housebar is so popular, the rules need to be rewritten to accommodate me — well, I would be run out of town on a rail. Yet in some ways, this is the path taken in regulating another controversial industry: shortterm rentals. Backed by billions of investment dollars and an aggressive strategy of "disruption" that favors expansion above cooperation, companies like Airbnb, VRBO, and others have generated as much controversy as they have profits, stubbornly resisting cities' attempts to rein the industry in. Of course, what these platforms offer is nothing new; home owners have taken in lodgers since the first settlement of cities. But with such a huge scope — over 34,000 cities on Airbnb alone — how do we balance the potential benefits of these businesses with their real impacts on our communities? Opposing narratives r.com/ac? 80676&pgname=apa&fmtid=34980&visit=m&tmstp= r.com/ac? 80676&pgname=apa&fmtid=34981&visit=m&tmstp= Attachment 5 Because the debate over shortterm rentals intersects with so many issues — the role of government, what constitutes a business, the rights of neighbors, and on and on — attempts at regulation can generate impassioned responses from hosts and residents alike. These narratives can be difficult for planners to reconcile. In the view of shortterm renters, hosting has been a great boon for individuals to make a little extra money, for neighborhoods to see tourist dollars, and for cities to promote tourism. The kindly old woman with a bedroom to let to excited millennials: This is the narrative that Airbnb and others focus on when expanding and promoting their services. Regarding a San Francisco ballot measure, an Airbnb spokesperson was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying, "This initiative, at the end of the day, is an attack on the middle class of San Francisco, who share their homes to help make ends meet. Homesharing in this city is a lifeline for thousands." However, to opponents, Airbnb's hoodieandflipflops vibe obscures a $25 billion behemoth whose business model has depended on ignoring local regulations in the name of growth and profit. Abetted by these platforms, hosts flout safety, housing, and zoning codes, turn quiet homes into frat parties, drive up rent by displacing residents, outcompete bedandbreakfasts, and fail to pay their share of taxes. The narrative of opponents focuses on the absentee landlord with a portfolio of crash pads for bachelor parties; they say this is the reality ignored by Airbnb that planners have to clean up. As one exasperated neighbor in Austin told a New York Times reporter, "[Hosts] are leveraging our neighborhood for their profit, telling people to come stay in this beautiful place ... and they are making people miserable." These competing identities have meant particularly contentious fights over regulation. In San Francisco, a proposed shortterm rental ordinance led to 12hour public meetings, allegations of vote tampering, and a $9 million proposition fight. (Though Airbnb and the other shortterm rental companies prevailed in the end, Airbnb's ad campaign for the proposition essentially told San Franciscans where they could stick the tax money the company pays. People were not amused.) There is no monolithic "shortterm host" but a spectrum of users (couchsurfing holdovers, empty nesters, young couples, and, yes, speculators and profiteers) and a spectrum of uses (occasional hosting, seasonal hosting, and, yes, the fauxhotel.) All of them, to some degree or another, have taken advantage of a regulatory Wild West in order to make money without proper oversight and without proper accountability. Getting past the noise In order to regulate an industry effectively, planners need to understand how these platforms are being used and by whom, and what kinds of impacts they have on neighborhoods. This is somewhat easier said than done; Airbnb and other companies do not freely release data, citing privacy concerns. When they do use data, the companies present a glowing picture of their activity, one that seems irresistible: Airbnb guests stay twice as long and spend twice as much as a typical visitor, with nearly half of all spending occurring in local neighborhoods. According to the company, more than half of its hosts are "low to moderate income" and say hosting helped them stay in their homes. In New York City, Airbnb claims to have generated $632 million in economic activity in one year alone. Opponents note, however, that the company has no reason to release numbers that paint their activity and their tactics in a negative light. In order to get a clearer picture of the realities on the ground, researchers have had to rely on other means of gathering information, largely by "scraping" the public listings of these websites. (Airbnb, in turn, claims that this type of data collection is flawed.) Another option is to sue for access to the data, which is what the New York State Attorney General did, discovering that as many as 72 percent of Airbnb reservations violated New York law. Despite an effort to be "open and transparent" with cities, even under subpoena Airbnb only releases anonymized data to city governments — no addresses, no names. Either by automated tools or through simple spreadsheets, trolling through Airbnb can give planners at least a broad outline of their local market, from average price per night (useful in calculating tax revenue) to the characteristics of the units available, like number of bedrooms, amenities, and safety equipment. Even a general map view can help planners see which neighborhoods are most affected or need greater enforcement. r.com/ac? 80676&pgname=apa&fmtid=34982&visit=m&tmstp= r.com/ac? 80676&pgname=apa&fmtid=34983&visit=m&tmstp= Attachment 5 Using these approaches, researchers have undercut Airbnb's narrative. The Real Deal, a New York based real estate journal, found shortterm rentals caused residents of some neighborhoods to pay up to an extra $825 a year in rent by removing units from the market. In New Orleans, far from helping a broad group of residents, nearly 50 percent of all bookings came from just six percent of listings, with some hosts making hundreds of thousands of dollars from dozens of properties without paying a cent in occupancy tax, according to one report. While Airbnb claims that hosts, on average, book only six days a month, that average conceals a huge spectrum from abandoned listings to fauxhotels. Using the number of reviews as a proxy for activity, planners can start to separate the momandpops from the professionals. More damningly, some reports cut at the heart of Airbnb's supposed benefits: tourism dollars. San Francisco's Office of Economic Analysis, considering the reduction of longterm residents and housing caused by fulltime hosting, wrote that for every 1,000 units lost to shortterm tourist rentals, the city's economy loses more than $250 million each year, far exceeding the benefit from visitor spending and hotel taxes. This is not to say shortterm rentals are all bad or all good, just that the reality of these marketplaces is complex. Planners have to get into the data, fragmented though it may be, in order to begin to categorize activity for regulation. Where Does Airbnb Pay its Share? Airbnb, as part of a "Community Compact" released in November 2015, promises to now "pay its 'fair share' of hotel and tourist taxes in cities that have them" though the mechanism for doing so, or the way for cities to participate, remains unclear. In most places, the company relies on hosts to pay all taxes, but agreements in a handful of cities and states require the company to collect and remit taxes, chiefly hotel or transient occupancy taxes (as high as 14.5 percent), but also sales and tourism development taxes. The locations are: Malibu, California Oakland, California Palo Alto, California San Diego San Francisco San Jose, California Santa Clara, California Santa Monica, California Chicago Florida Multnomah County and Portland, Oregon North Carolina Philadelphia Phoenix Rhode Island Washington State Washington, D.C. Source: Airbnb.com How to regulate? For planners, the way forward with regulation is a threepart process. PART 1 Establish a baseline level of safety and accountability. In its Terms of Service, Airbnb is very clear, repeatedly, that the hosts on its platform are 100 percent responsible for following local laws on everything from safety and zoning to taxation and sex offender registries. While any shortterm rental should have to conform to local building, occupancy, health, and safety codes, it is up to the local planner to ensure properties are compliant. The safety of guests, hosts, and neighbors is the highest priority in regulating the shortterm rental market. Airbnb and other companies, as part of their response to local pushback about safety, have adopted a policy of assisted selfpolicing for their hosts by offering free smoke detectors or fillin theblank emergency plans. But a host does not actually need to prove the existence or operation of any safety feature in order to list. When I created a test listing, I was able to simply click "Next." Similarly, Airbnb has slowly evolved on the issue of insurance, shifting some responsibility away from the hosts. In late 2015, the company augmented a "million dollar host guarantee" to protect against damage caused by its service — which does not cover personal liability, shared or common areas (a big issue for condos) and is specifically described as "not insurance" — to a limited million dollar policy backed by Lloyd's of London. This system creates a strange network of legal entanglements as Airbnb is both the policyholder and claims administrator for local hosts, who themselves have their own separate insurance. But because many home insurance companies consider shortterm renting a commercial use — and thus not covered under the standard policies — hosts may find themselves at the center of a huge and complicated fight that would make a trial lawyer drool; if a guest booked on Airbnb burns down a condo building and a firefighter is injured in the process, how is that legal mess going to sort itself out? Additionally, any damages and liabilities beyond a million dollars — assuming Airbnb even pays out — will fall on the hosts. The easiest solution is to require shortterm renters to carry the appropriate insurance, one that specifically covers their activity and their level of risk. But being a good host also means taking steps to avoid imposing on your neighbors' quality of life. No one wants to deal with loud guests, or litter, or parking issues, whether from a longterm or a shortterm tenant. Beyond strengthening and enforcing existing nuisance laws, some cities such as Portland, Oregon, and Santa Monica, California, have tried to include more direct accountability into their regulations; basic ideas like having hosts give out contact information to neighbors to report bad guests or only allowing owneroccupied rentals. In this scheme, serial offenders could face punishments that disincentivize their behavior, such as the loss of shortterm rental or commercial permits, escalating fines, or code enforcement actions. Attachment 5 Ultimately, despite all the hype about the socalled "sharing economy," shortterm rentals are fundamentally a commercial use, one that cities have regulated successfully in the past as bedand breakfasts, inns, motels, hotels, or SROs. In places that have traditional bedandbreakfasts, innkeepers complain that competing with unregulated Airbnb units harms them doubly — as small business owners and as residents. Since the act of hosting is the same regardless of how a unit is booked, then the issues — from safety to zoning to garbage fees to taxes — are as well. Planners should simply hold a shortterm rental unit to the same standards as any other similar business. PART 2 Move past simply yes or no. When pressure to "do something" about shortterm rentals comes down from City Hall or up from neighbors, the debate is often framed as a yes or no; "anything goes" or "not in my backyard." The answer will be probably be somewhere in between, and while it can be a laborious process, tailoring regulation to your city's particular situation can pay dividends. As I learned at last year's APA conference in Seattle, the experience of a few Colorado destinations can serve as examples of adapting regulation to local needs. Durango, a small city that serves as a regional center for the Four Corners, faced tremendous housing pressures after growing rapidly over the past decade. With vacancy rates dipping below one percent in some neighborhoods, and rents high and incomes flat, groups like college students, retirees, and service industry workers had increasingly limited options within the city. At the same time, Durango welcomes thousands of tourists each year, drawn to the nearby natural beauty, redeveloped downtown, and seasonal festivals. Shortterm rentals catered to some visitors, and the popularity (and notoriety) of these units led Durango's city government to develop new regulation. Through research and a series of community meetings, Durango's planners were able to identify three main areas that needed addressing in their city: impacts on tourism, impacts on neighborhoods, and — most important — impacts on housing. A neighborhood encompassing much of the downtown and the local university had an especially tight market, and neighbors expressed concern about "dark blocks," where the spread of shortterm rentals on specific streets left few permanent residents. Durango's solution limits the density of allowed shortterm units within groups of blocks, effectively preventing clustering while still accepting the use as permissible. By making a determination that preserving housing availability was the ultimate community goal, one that both transcended and intersected with shortterm renting, Durango's planners could fit the discussion over Airbnb units into a larger narrative about the future of their city. Aspen had a different problem: empty units. A worldfamous destination with seasonal ebbs and flows of tourists, the city is burdened by a hodgepodge of residential properties — condos, ski villages, second homes — that sit disused much of the year. By legalizing and standardizing requirements for shortterm rentals, Aspen's planners were able to enhance the city's tourist economy while still maintaining control over important issues like permitting, taxation, and safety of individual units. Durango's Street Segment Cap In order to mitigate the effects of shortterm rentals and preserve housing availability, Durango's Land Use and Development Code creates density limits for these rentals in residential zones. Only one permit is allowed per street segment. (For corner lots, the permit counts against both adjacent street segments and the intersection.) While there is no citywide cap on permits, there is a maximum number of permits available in residential districts. Attachment 5 Source: Durango Planning Department Both Durango and Aspen found the key to controlling these concerns was treating shortterm rentals as small businesses, allowing them to justify the use of their regulatory tools like zoning and licensing in ways that were consistent, understandable, and enforceable. Attachment 5 PART 3 Ensure enforcement on the ground and online. For shortterm rentals, as for anything, regulation is only as good as its enforcement. Cities have struggled in this regard, creating huge opportunities for abuse while frustrating city officials and neighbors alike when longdebated ordinances do little to quiet complaints. Though it is often spoken of as one concept, the shortterm rental industry is really made up of two interrelated markets. One is the multitude of local hosts that interact directly with neighbors. They have to navigate (or disregard) local ordinances and are, even as absentee investors, a part of the community. The other market, the listing companies like Airbnb and VRBO, has been harder to engage in enforcement efforts or tax collection, repeatedly pushing all responsibility to local hosts and governments. This policy line — that Airbnb, despite any illegal activity on its site, is essentially blameless — results in awkward complications for enforcement. In New Orleans, for example, Airbnb has a special tab on its website giving tips about how hosts can follow city rules: get a permit, pay your taxes, report nuisances, etc. What it leaves out is telling: that renting for less than 30 days is illegal. Instead of either confirming permit holders or hardwiring the law into their business — and thus cutting down the amount of activity that violates local rules — Airbnb punts. It makes it so that a host would have to manually set a minimum stay of 30 days on the Airbnb platform to be compliant — no proof of permit needed. In other major cities, new shortterm rental ordinances become undone by flaws in enforcement. In San Francisco, a muchdiscussed ordinance only led to 282 applications — out of 6,000 listings — in the first three months, with only 27 units delisted for bad behavior — evidence, critics say, that the selfpolicing and selfreporting model pushed by Airbnb (and the mayor's office) is deeply flawed. In Austin, after a New York Times expose found some party houses continue to rage on even after racking up 60 code violations, fingerpointing ensued: Airbnb blames the city for allowing serial violators to continue operation, while Austinites wonder why Airbnb keeps letting the houses list. A simple option, like requiring a listing company to match a permit number to a city database in order to list, would immediately curb many of the worst abuses and reduce the number of listings that need monitoring. Unable to convince Airbnb to collaborate on such a system and frustrated by only one in 10 hosts having permits, Portland, Oregon, threatened fining all the listing companies $500 per violation per day for every listing that was not permitted. (Though the city has yet to fully curb illegal listings on Airbnb, Portland did sue Homeaway for $2.5 million for refusing to pay lodging taxes and ensuring proper permit inspections.) The enforcement officer's message was clear: If a city goes through the hassle of writing a new ordinance, why should anyone without a permit be allowed on these sites? At the end of the day, the antagonistic system — this sharing economy Wild West in place today — simply does not work for city governments to enforce their laws, does not help legitimate hosts compete with "bad actors," and, ultimately, does not allow Airbnb and other shortterm rental companies to live up to their own rhetoric of "belonging everywhere." Rental units need to be fairly treated as a business, regulations need to be tailored to each city's unique situation, and enforcement needs to hold everyone accountable. Whether in Silicon Valley or Main Street USA, the old adage is still true: Good fences make good neighbors. Jeffrey Goodman is an urban planner and graphic designer based in New Orleans. His work focuses on the sharing economy, community participation, and datadriven regulation. He has contracted with both the city of New Orleans and Airbnb, and advised researchers on shortterm rentals in San Francisco, Portland, New Orleans, and New York. Contact him through JBGoodman.com. Rent Your Driveway By Kristen Pope Rooms to rent on Airbnb, VRBO, and other sites aren't the only things up for grabs in many urban neighborhoods. Another hot commodity going to the highest bidder: parking spaces. Innovative app developers came up with a solution to this dilemma by creating a slew of apps to rent out spaces to parkinghungry drivers. However, app designers soon discovered a hitch: It was illegal in many locations. Most of these early apps and parking space brokers worked on the premise that a driver about to leave their public, onstreet parking space would log on and let other app users know the location of the soontobevacant spot, giving another user first dibs (for a fee) on snagging the spot. The new parker's fee, typically between $5 and $30, would be split between the departing motorist and the app company. Since many of these apps were essentially renting out public, onstreet parking spaces, municipalities worked quickly to block them. In San Francisco the big players were MonkeyParking, Sweetch, and ParkModo, and the city attorney sent several such apps ceaseand desist letters in 2014, threatening to fine drivers up to $300 and the companies up to $2,500 per violation. The letters also noted a lawsuit was imminent if the apps continued operation in the city. Then a new — legal — wave of apps came to the city, including SpotHero, ParqEx, and ParkWhiz, allowing people to rent or exchange private parking spaces, including those in parking garages. Paul Rose, chief spokesperson for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, notes these transactions aren't a concern if they don't impinge on public safety. "Any [safety] concerns will come out of blocking the right of way, preventing people from walking on the sidewalks, or if parking going on in a driveway causes people to walk out into the street," he says. However, the transaction itself isn't an issue for the agency. "[If] they're leasing spaces that are a part of private property, that's not something that we would necessarily get involved in," Rose says. Attachment 5 ww.youtube.com/user/AmericanPlanningAssn).com/APA_Planning)ng.org/news/rss/)/us/podcast/american ) ups?455695210273594/115086455695210273594/posts)@N05/sets/) Likewise, Boston officials aren't too concerned about apps that rent out private property. Public property, however, is another matter. In 2014, the city passed an ordinance effectively banning the Haystack app, which let users notify other users — who paid a fee — when they were about to leave a public parking space. The app claimed it was in the business of exchanging information rather than selling public property, but the city disagreed. However, as long as apps comply with city regulations, they're not a problem, according to the Boston Press Office, which said, "Generally, parking apps that allow a private property owner to rent his or her parking space facilitate a private transaction that does not implicate the city's rules and regulations." Portland, Oregon, has a far more restrictive policy than Boston or San Francisco. Its zoning rules deem residential neighborhoods — all singlefamily and most multifamily zones — unfit for many types of commercial activity, including renting out parking spots. However, Jill Grenda, supervising planner for Portland's Bureau of Development Services, notes that enforcement is driven by complaints. "Like any other zoning violation, it's a complaintdriven enforcement system," she says. "So the city wouldn't know about it unless a grumpy neighbor called our code enforcement line and said, 'My neighbor has different people parking in their driveway every single day, and I know because I live next door. Can you come and investigate?'" Kristen Pope is a Jackson, Wyomingbased freelance writer and editor who writes about planning, science, conservation, and the outdoors, among other topics. Visit her at kepope.com. Resources Illustration by John Ueland, uelandillustration.com Image: An Airbnbfinanced group put this billboard up in San Francisco before a ballot initiative in November that would have limited the homesharing service. After helping defeat Proposition F, Airbnb pledged to cooperate with local governments. Jason Henry/The New York Times. Attachment 5 Vacation Home Ordinance Enforcement Comments This document was created as a response to various questions that the Town of Estes Park Planning Division has received throughout the past few weeks regarding zoning code enforcement of vacation homes in the Estes Valley. The Renewal of an Annual Operating Permit may be denied or withheld as a result of an alleged violation confirmed by staff Community Development Director (Decision-making Body) may deny or withhold the renewal of such permit until an alleged violation is corrected in accordance with §12.4.A.1. An alleged violation is a violation that has been confirmed by staff but not yet been prosecuted in Municipal Court (for Town properties) or District Count (County properties). The Planning Commission recommends that this decision be appealable to them (the Commission). An Annual Operating Permit can be revoked at any time due to a confirmed violation The Community Development Director (Decision-making Body) may revoke an annual operating permit for twelve (12) months for one of the following reasons (§12.4.A.2): o There is a departure from the approved plans, specifications or conditions of approval; o There is a violation of any provision of the Code; o The development permit was obtain by false representation; or o The development permit was issued in error. In this case, a “violation” is confirmed via prosecution at Municipal Court or District Court. The Planning Commission recommends the decision made at this public hearing be appealable to them (the Commission). The administrative procedures within the Town’s Code Compliance Policy will be amended to include what violations will lead to such a hearing. The Town is working to implement a Penalty Assessment citation for Development Code Violations Section 12.7 of the attached ordinance lays the groundwork for adopting a Penalty Assessment citation for Development Code violations within the Town of Estes Park. This citation will be similar to a traffic citation. In practice, vacation home renters will receive a citation on the spot for land use violations such as noise, vehicles or unpermitted outdoor activities. The renter(s) will then have to option to pay a fine or appeal the citation in Municipal Court. Development Code violations may be prosecuted at any time A violation of any provision of the attached ordinance may be prosecuted in Municipal Court or District Court at any time. The result of such prosecutions, if successful, is typically a monetary penalty. Noise and trespassing violations may be prosecuted at any time While noise and trespassing violations are not Development Code violations, the Estes Park Police Department and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office may cite such violations at any time. Attachment 6: Enforcement Notes