HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Joint Town Board and County Commissioners 2016-12-15TOWN OF ESTES PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES
AND
LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Thursday, December 15, 2016
6:00 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.HOST COMPLIANCE SOFTWARE AND SERVICES AGREEMENT CONTRACT.
Director Hunt.
2.TOWN OF ESTES PARK ORDINANCE #29-16 - PUBLIC HEARING – AMENDMENTS
TO THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO VACATION HOME
REGULATIONS. Director Hunt.
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 Jirsa & Commissioner Donnelly to Open the Public Hearing for the Action
items.
Mayor Jirsa & Commissioner Donnelly to Close Public Hearing for the Action items.
Town Board & Larimer County Commissioners joint discussion.
Mayor Jirsa to Open the Town Board of Trustees meeting to take action on Ordinance
#29-16.
Mayor Jirsa to Close the meeting.
Commissioner Donnelly to Open the Larimer County Commissioners meeting to take
action on the Resolution.
Commissioner Donnelly to Close Larimer County Commissioners 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.
1
2
To: Honorable Mayor Todd Jirsa
Town Board of Trustees
Frank Lancaster, Town Administrator
From: Randy Hunt, AICP, Community Development Director
Date: December 15, 2016
RE: Host Compliance Software and Services Agreement
Objective:
Enter into an agreement with Host Compliance, LLC, to assist with the enforcement of
vacation home regulations by identifying and gather data for non-compliant properties.
Present Situation:
Vacation home properties in the Estes Valley Development Area are a concern to both
the property owners and neighboring residents. Identifying vacation homes that are not
compliant with licensing and registration processes is difficult and time consuming.
Vacation homes that have obtained proper licensing or registration are agreeing to all
EVDC regulations that pertain to operating a vacation home. Those properties that are
not licensed or have not registered, do not necessarily know the codes and could be
violating without intent. We strive to register all vacation homes to ensure that all codes
are known, and violations are minimized. By educating the property owners we are able
to reduce the number of incidents.
Enforcement data is difficult to track as current enforcement is shared by the Town’s
Community Development Department, Police Department and Sheriff’s Office. We
don’t have a system which allows for the gathering data from all sources into a format
that can be usable for future enforcement actions.
Proposal:
An agreement with Host Compliance will assist the Code Compliance Officer to identify
non-compliant properties and take enforcement action as necessary to bring them into
compliance.
Through regular reporting from Host Compliance, the Town will potentially be able to get
all vacation homes licensed or registered, which will increase business license revenues.
In addition, monitoring rental activity will improve the tax collection operations through
pro-active outreach to vacation rental owners concerning their tax payment obligations.
Community Development
Memo
3
Non-emergency complaints and problems with vacation homes will be streamlined
through Host Compliance’s 24/7 staffed hotline. Immediate contact will be made with the
property owners or managers to correct the situation, when appropriate. Full
documentation of all reported incidents including digital recordings, written transcripts,
and any uploaded photos, video or sound recordings sent by the complainant. Weekly
reports of all incidents will be provided to staff for follow through with any necessary
enforcement action.
Advantages
This agreement will significantly improve our ability to identify non-compliant vacation
rentals.
The public will have a 24/7 hotline to call with issues.
Licensing revenue and tax revenues will increase with pro-active approach to encourage
compliance.
The agreement includes a 6 month trial period whereby the Town can terminate the
agreement without penalty if dissatisfied with the service. All funds paid will be refunded.
Disadvantages
Educating the public to call the 24/7 hotline may be difficult at first. We will need to launch
a strong campaign to make this work effectively.
Action Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Town enter into the agreement by signing the attached agreement.
The County does not need to sign this agreement as their interest will be through the
existing IGA.
Budget:
The annual subscription service cost for Host Compliance is $50,185, and has been
included in the budget by both the Town and the County. The County has agreed to
contribute 50% of this cost.
Level of Public Interest:
High.
Recommended Motion:
I move to recommend approval/denial of the Host Compliance Software and Services
Agreement.
Attachments:
Host Compliance Software and Services Agreement
4
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678)San Francisco, CA 94103
Host Compliance Software and Services Agreement
THIS SOFTWARE AND SERVICES AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into as of the January 1, 2017 (the
"Effective Date"), between Host Compliance LLC, ("Host Compliance") and Town of Estes Park, with an address at
170 MacGregor Avenue, Estes Park, CO 80517 (the "Customer"). This Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions
under which Host Compliance agrees to license to Customer certain hosted software and provide all other services
necessary for Customer's productive use of such software (the "Services") as further described in the attached
Schedule 1.
1.0 Services.
1.1 Subscriptions. Unless otherwise provided in the attached Schedule 1, (a) Services are purchased as
subscriptions, (b) additional service subscriptions may be added during a subscription term, with the
pricing for such additional services, prorated for the portion of that subscription term remaining at the
time the subscriptions are added, and (c) any added subscriptions will terminate on the same date as
the underlying subscription.
1.2 Provision of Services. Customer may access and use the Services and any other Services that may be
ordered by the Customer from time to time pursuant to a valid subscription in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement.
1.3 Facilities and Data Processing. Host Compliance will use, at a minimum, industry standard technical
and organizational security measures to store data provided by Customer, or obtained by Customer
through the use of the Services ("Customer Data"). These measures are designed to protect the
integrity of Customer Data and guard against unauthorized or unlawful access.
1.4 Modifications to the Services. Host Compliance may update the Services from time to time. If Host
Compliance updates the Services in a manner that materially improves functionality, Host Compliance
will inform the Customer.
2.0 Customer Obligations.
2.1 Customer Administration of the Services. Host Compliance' responsibilities do not extend to internal
management or administration of the Services. Customer is responsible for: (i) maintaining the
confidentiality of passwords and accounts; (ii) managing access to Administrator accounts; and (iii)
ensuring that Administrators' use of the Services complies with this Agreement.
2.2 Compliance. Customer is responsible for use of the Services and will comply with laws and regulations
applicable to customer's use of the Services, if any.
2.3 Unauthorized Use & Access. Customer will prevent unauthorized use of the Services and terminate any
unauthorized use of or access to the Services. Customer will promptly notify Host Compliance of any
unauthorized use of or access to the Services.
2.4 Restricted Uses. Customer will not: (i) sell, resell, or lease the Services; or (ii) reverse engineer or
attempt to reverse engineer the Services, nor assist anyone else to do so.
5
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678)San Francisco, CA 94103
2.5 Third Party Requests.
2.5.1 "Third Party Request" means a request from a third party for records relating to Customer's
use of the Services. Third Party Requests may include valid search warrants, court orders,
subpoenas, open records, or any other request.
2.5.2 Customer is responsible for responding to Third Party Requests via its own access to
information policies. Customer will seek to obtain information required to respond to Third
Party Requests and will contact Host Compliance only if it cannot obtain such information
despite diligent efforts.
2.5.3 If Host Compliance receives a Third Party Request, Host Compliance will make reasonable
efforts, to the extent allowed by law and by the terms of the Third Party Request, to: (A)
promptly notify Customer of Host Compliance's receipt of a Third Party Request; (B) comply
with Customer's reasonable requests regarding efforts to oppose a Third Party Request; and
(C) provide Customer with information or tools required for Customer to respond to the
Third Party Request (if Customer is otherwise unable to obtain the information). If
Customer fails to promptly respond to any Third Party Request, then Host Compliance may,
but will not be obligated to do so.
2.5.4 If Customer receives a Third Party Request for access to the Services, or descriptions,
drawings, images or videos of the Services' user interface, Customer will make reasonable
efforts, to the extent allowed by law and by the terms of the Third Party Request, to: (A)
promptly notify Host Compliance of Customer's receipt of such Third Party Request; (B)
comply with Host Compliance's reasonable requests regarding efforts to oppose a Third
Party Request; and (C) provide Host Compliance with information required for Host
Compliance to respond to the Third Party Request. If Host Compliance fails to promptly
respond to any Third Party Request, then Customer may, but will not be obligated to do so.
3.0 Intellectual Property Rights; Confidentiality
3.1 Reservation of Rights. Except as expressly set forth herein, this Agreement does not grant (i) Host
Compliance any intellectual Property Rights in the Customer Data or (ii) Customer any Intellectual
Property Rights in the Services, any other products or offerings of Host Compliance, Host Compliance
trademarks and brand features, or any improvements, modifications or derivative works of any of the
foregoing. "Intellectual Property Rights" means current and future worldwide rights under patents,
copyright, trade secret, trademark, moral rights and other similar rights.
3.2 Suggestions. Host Compliance may, at its discretion and for any purpose, use, modify, and incorporate
into its products and services, and license and sub-license, any feedback, comments, or suggestions
Customer send Host Compliance or post in Host Compliance' online forums without any obligation to
Customer.
3.3 Confidential Information. Customer, except as required by law, understands and agrees that it will not
reveal, publish or otherwise disclose to any person, firm or corporation, without written authorization
of Host Compliance, any Confidential Information of Host Compliance, including without limitation any
6
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678)San Francisco, CA 94103
trade secrets, confidential knowledge, data or other proprietary information relating to the Services.
"Confidential Information" means all information, written or oral, relating to the business, operations,
services, facilities, processes, methodology, technologies, intellectual property, research and
development, customers, strategy or other confidential or proprietary materials of Host Compliance.
4.0 Fees & Payment.
4.1 Fees.
4.1.1 Customer will pay Host Compliance for all applicable fees upfront annually.
4.1.2 Customer will pay any amounts related to the Services as per payment terms detailed on
the applicable invoice. Unless otherwise indicated, all dollar amounts referred to in the
Agreement are in U.S. funds.
4.1.3 Customer acknowledges that while it may choose to delay the implementation of the
Services, this is not a valid reason for withholding payment on any invoices. Furthermore,
the Customer will not withhold payment on any invoices for any other reason.
4.1.4 Except as expressly provided on Schedule 1, renewal of promotional or one-time priced
subscriptions will be at Host Compliance's applicable list price in effect at the time of the
applicable renewal. Unless Host Compliance provide Customer notice of different pricing at
least 75 days prior to the applicable renewal term, the per unit pricing during any renewal
term will increase by the larger of the 12-Month Consumer Price Index (not seasonally
adjusted), as published by the United States Department of Labor, or five (5) percent.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, any renewal in which the number of monitored
short-term rental listings has increased or decreased from the prior term will result in re-
pricing at renewal without regard to the prior term's per-unit pricing.
4.2 Taxes. Customer is responsible for all taxes. Host Compliance will charge tax when required to do so.
If Customer is required by law to withhold any taxes, Customer must provide Host Compliance with an
official tax receipt or other appropriate documentation.
4.3 Purchase Orders. If Customer requires the use of a purchase order or purchase order number,
Customer (i) must provide the purchase number at the time of purchase and (ii) agrees that any terms
and conditions on a Customer purchase order will not apply to this Agreement or the Services provided
hereunder and are null and void.
5.0 Term & Termination.
5.1 Term. The initial term of this Agreement shall be one year commencing on the Effective Date, which
shall automatically renew for a further period of one year upon each expiry of the then current term,
unless either party provides written notice to the other party of it intention not to renew at least 45
days prior to the end of the then current term. That said, the time period until the earlier of (a) the 6-
month anniversary of the Effective Date, or (b) the start date of Customer's systematic or mass
outreach activities utilizing the data obtained through the Services (traditional mail, electronic mail,
7
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678)San Francisco, CA 94103
and/or telephone campaigns), or (c) termination by Host Compliance in our sole discretion, shall be
considered a trial period ("Trial Period").
5.2 Termination for Convenience. If, for any reason during the Trial Period, Customer is dissatisfied with
the Services, Customer may terminate the Subscription and all funds paid under this Agreement will be
refunded and future commitments waived.
5.3 Effects of Termination for Convenience. If this Agreement is terminated by Customer in accordance
with Section 5.2 (Termination for Convenience): (i) the rights granted by Host Compliance to Customer
will cease immediately and Customer will no longer have the right to utilize the data obtained through
the use of the Services for systematic or mass outreach activities (including traditional mail, electronic
mail, and/or telephone campaigns); and (ii) after a reasonable period of time, Host Compliance may
delete any Customer Data relating to Customer's account. The following sections will survive expiration
or termination of this Agreement: 2.5 (Third Party Requests), 3.0 (Intellectual Property Rights;
Confidentiality), 4.0 (Fees & Payments), 5.2 (Termination for Convenience), 5.3 (Effects of Termination
for Convenience), 6.0 (Indemnification), 7.0 (Exclusion of Warranties; Limitation of Liability), and 8.0
(Miscellaneous).
5.4 Termination for Breach: Following the Trial Period, a party may terminate this Agreement for cause
upon 45 days written notice to the other party of a material breach if such breach remains uncured at
the expiration of such period.
5.5 Refund or Payment upon Termination for Breach. If this Agreement is terminated by Customer in
accordance with Section 5.4 (Termination for Breach), Host Compliance will refund Customer any
prepaid fees covering the remainder of the term of all Subscriptions after the effective date of
termination. If this Agreement is terminated by Host Compliance in accordance with Section 5.4
(Termination for Breach), Customer will pay any unpaid fees covering the remainder of the term of the
Agreement. In no event will Customer's termination after the first 6 months relieve Customer of its
obligation to pay any fees payable to Host Compliance for the period prior to the effective date of
termination.
5.6 Effects of Termination for Breach. If this Agreement is terminated in accordance with Section 5.4
(Termination for Breach): (i) the rights granted by Host Compliance to Customer will cease immediately
(except as set forth in this section); (ii) Host Compliance may provide Customer access to its account at
then-current fees so the Customer may export its Customer Data; and (iii) after a reasonable period of
time, Host Compliance may delete any Customer Data relating to Customer's account. The following
sections will survive expiration or termination of this Agreement: 2.5 (Third Party Requests), 3.0
(Intellectual Property Rights; Confidentiality), 4.0 (Fees & Payments), 5.5 (Refund or Payment upon
Termination for Breach), 5.6 (Effects of Termination for Breach), 6.0 (Indemnification), 7.0 (Exclusion of
Warranties; Limitation of Liability), and 8.0 (Miscellaneous).
6.0 Indemnification.
6.1 By Host Compliance. Host Compliance will indemnify, defend and hold harmless Customer from and
against all liabilities, damages, and costs (including settlement costs and reasonable attorney's fees)
8
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678)San Francisco, CA 94103
arising out of any claim by a third party against Customer to the extent based on an allegations that
Host Compliance' technology used to provide the Services to the Customer infringes or misappropriates
any copyright, trade secret, patent or trademark right of the third party. In no event will Host
Compliance have any obligations or liability under this section arising from: (i) use of any Services in a
modified form or in combination with materials not furnished by Host Compliance and (ii) any content,
information, or data provided by Customers, End Users, or other third parties.
6.2 By Customer. Customer, to the extent legally allowed, will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Host
Compliance from and against all liabilities, damages, and costs (including settlement costs and
reasonable attorney's fees) arising out of any claim by a third party against Host Compliance regarding:
(i) Customer Data;or (ii) Customer's use of the Services in violation of this Agreement.
6.3 Possible Infringement. If Host Compliance believes the Services infringe or may be alleged to infringe a
third party's Intellectual Property Rights, then Host Compliance may (i) obtain the right for Customer, at
Host Compliance' expense, to continue using the Services; (ii) provide a non-infringing functionally
equivalent replacement for the Services; or (iii) modify the Services so that they no longer infringe. If
Host Compliance does not believe the options described in this section are reasonable then Host
Compliance may suspend or terminate this Agreement and/or Customer's use of the affected Services
with no further liability or obligation to the Customer other than the obligation to provide the Customer
with a pro-rata refund of pre-paid fees for the affected portion of the Services.
6.4 General. The party seeking indemnification will promptly notify the other party of the claim and
cooperate with the other party in defending the claim. The indemnifying party will have full control and
authority over the defense, except that: (i) any settlement requiring the party seeking indemnification
to admit liability requires prior written consent, not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed and (ii) the
other party may join in the defense with its own counsel at its own expense. The indemnities above are
Host Compliance' and Customer's only remedy under this Agreement for violation by the other party of
a third party's Intellectual Property Rights.
7.0 Exclusion of Warranties; Limitation of Liability.
7.1 Exclusion of Warranties. Except as explicitly set forth in this Agreement, Host Compliance makes no
other representation, warranty or condition, express or implied, and expressly excludes all implied or
statutory warranties or conditions of merchantability, merchantable quality, durability or fitness for a
particular purpose, and those arising by statute or otherwise in law or from a course of dealing or usage
of trade with respect to the Services. Host Compliance does not make any representations or
warranties of any kind to client with respect to any third party software forming part of the Services
7.2 Limitation on Indirect Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, except for Host Compliance and
Customer's indemnification obligations hereunder, neither Customer nor Host Compliance and its
affiliates, suppliers, and distributors will be liable under this Agreement for (i) indirect, special,
incidental, consequential, exemplary, or punitive damages, or (ii) loss of use, data, business, revenue, or
profits (in each case whether direct or indirect), even if the party knew or should have known that such
damages were possible and even if a remedy fails of its essential purpose.
9
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678)San Francisco, CA 94103
7.3 Limitation on Amount of Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Host Compliance' aggregate
liability under this Agreement will not exceed the amount paid by Customer to Host Compliance
hereunder during the twelve months prior to the event giving rise to liability.
8.0 Miscellaneous.
8.1 Terms Modification. Host Compliance may wish to revise this Agreement from time to time. If a
revision, in Host Compliance' sole discretion, is material, Host Compliance will notify Customer and
possibly request that an Amendment to this Agreement be agreed upon and signed. If Customer does
not agree to the revised Agreement terms, Customer may terminate the Services within 30 days of
receiving notice of the change and Host Compliance will refund Customer any prepaid fees covering the
remainder of the term of all Subscriptions after the effective date of termination.
8.2 Entire Agreement. The Agreement including the invoice and order form provided by Host Compliance,
constitutes the entire agreement between Customer and Host Compliance with respect to the subject
matter of this Agreement and supersedes and replaces any prior or contemporaneous understandings
and agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. If
there is a conflict between the documents that make up this Agreement, the documents will control in
the following order: this Agreement, then the invoice, then the order form.
8.3 Governing Law. This Agreement will in all respects be governed exclusively by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
8.4 Severability. Unenforceable provisions will be modified to reflect the parties' intention and only to the
extent necessary to make them enforceable, and the remaining provisions of the Agreement will
remain in full effect.
8.5 Waiver or Delay. Any express waiver or failure to exercise promptly any right under the Agreement will
not create a continuing waiver or any expectation of non-enforcement.
8.6 Assignment. Customer may not assign or transfer this Agreement or any rights or obligations under
this Agreement without the written consent of Host Compliance. Host Compliance may not assign this
Agreement without providing notice to Customer, except Host Compliance my assign this Agreement or
any rights or obligations under this Agreement to an affiliate or in connection with a merger,
acquisition, corporate reorganization, or sale of all or substantially all of its assets without providing
notice. Any other attempt to transfer or assign is void.
8.7 Force Majeure. Except for payment obligations, neither Host Compliance nor Customer will be liable
for inadequate performance to the extent caused by a condition that was beyond the party's
reasonable control (for example, natural disaster, act of war or terrorism, riot, labor condition,
governmental action and Internet disturbance).
8.8 Procurement Piggybacking. Host Compliance agrees to reasonably participate in any "piggybacking"
programs pertinent to local government.
10
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678)San Francisco, CA 94103
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Host Compliance and the Customer have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
Town of Estes Park
by its authorized signatory:
Name:
Title:
Date:
Billing Contact:
Billing Email:
Billing Direct Phone:
Host Compliance LLC
by its authorized signatory:
Name: Ulrik Binzer
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:
Account Executive:
Account Executive Email:
Account Executive Phone:
11
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678)San Francisco, CA 94103
Schedule 1
Scope of Services:
Trend Monitoring
Monthly email-delivered report and live web-delivered dashboard with aggregate statistics on the short-term
rental activity in the Estes Valley Planning Area (“jurisdiction”):
Active monitoring of jurisdiction's short-term rental listings across 15+ STR websites
Monthly analysis of jurisdiction's STR activity scale, scope and trends
Address Identification
Monthly email-delivered report and live web-delivered dashboard with complete address information and
screenshots of all identifiable STRs in the jurisdiction:
Up-to-date list of jurisdiction's active STR listings
High resolution screenshots of all active listings (captured weekly)
Full address and contact information for all identifiable STRs in jurisdiction
All available listing and contact information for non-identifiable STRs in jurisdiction
Compliance Monitoring
Ongoing monitoring of the short-term rentals operating in Town of Estes Park's jurisdiction for zoning and permit
compliance coupled with systematic outreach to non-compliant short-term rental property owners (using Town of Estes
Park's form letters)
●Ongoing monitoring of STRs for zoning and permit compliance
●Pro-active and systematic outreach to unpermitted and/or illegal short-term rental operators (using
jurisdiction's form letters)
●Monthly staff report on jurisdiction's zoning and permit compliance:
●Up-to-date list of STRs operating illegally or without the proper permits
●Full case history for non-compliant listings
Rental Activity Monitoring and Tax Collection Support
Ongoing monitoring of jurisdiction's short-term rental properties for signs of rental activity and/or tax compliance:
Automatic monitoring of calendar and review activity across 15+ STR websites
Weekly screenshots of reviews and calendars for each active listing
Quarterly pro-active, systematic and data-informed outreach to short-term rental operators regarding their
tax remittance obligations (using jurisdiction's form letters)
12
HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC
Short-term Rental Compliance Monitoring and Associated Services
HCSA - 5-5-2016 - W
www.hostcompliance.com 735 Market Street Floor 4
Tel: (754) 888-HOST (4678)San Francisco, CA 94103
Quarterly staff report on jurisdiction's STR tax compliance:
Up-to-date list of short-term rental landlords suspected of under-reporting taxes
Documentation of information that serves as the foundation for the suspicion of tax under-reporting
Custom reports and analysis to support tax audits and other STR related investigations
7/24 Short-term Rental Hotline
24/7 staffed telephone and email hotline for neighbors to report non-emergency problems related to STR
properties:
●Incidents can be reported by phone or email
●Full documentation of all reported incidents
●Digital recordings and written transcripts of all calls
●Ability for neighbors to include photos, video footage and sound recordings to document complaints
●Real-time outreach to owners of problem properties (whenever owner's contact info is known)
●Weekly staff reports containing:
○The # and types of reported incidents
○List of properties for which incidents have been reported
●Custom reports and analysis of hotline related activities
Total Annual Subscription Service Price $50,185
Note: Above pricing assumes 869 short-term rental listings in the jurisdiction.
13
14
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report
To: Hon. Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Hon. Chair Donnelly
Board of County Commissioners
Town Administrator Frank Lancaster
County Manager Linda Hoffmann
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: December 15, 2016
RE: Proposed Text Amendments to Estes Valley Development Code:
Vacation Homes
Ordinance No. 29-16 [Town]; Resolution No. _____ [County]
Objective:
Review of proposed text amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC)
§5.1.B (Specific Use Standards: Bed and Breakfast Inn and Vacation Home), and
related EVDC sections as appropriate and necessary.
Code Amendment Objective:
The objective of this proposed code amendment is to revise the EVDC to appropriately
regulate vacation homes in the Estes Valley.
Vacation homes, also known as “vacation rentals” or “VRs”, have a long history in the
Estes Valley and elsewhere. This staff memo is not the place to summarize this history.
Suffice it to say that the phenomenon has by many reports grown to sizeable
proportions in recent years, and strong view have emerged on many regulatory issues.
After a number of previous sets of vacation-home regulations were considered for the
EVDC – some adopted, others not – the decision was made to appoint a Task Force.
On August 30, 2016, a joint study session was held among the Town of Estes Park
Board of Trustees, the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners, and the Estes
Valley Planning Commission. The joint study session was held for the purpose of
considering appropriate changes to the Estes Valley Development Code’s (EVDC’s)
regulations on vacation home rentals. More particularly, the session reviewed findings
of the Vacation Rental Task Force, as summarized in Larimer County Community
Development Director Terry Gilbert’s 23 August 2016 memorandum, and also heard
from Task Force member Ed Peterson on issues regarding vacation-rental code
enforcement.
These groups on Aug. 30 came to consensus on the following:
15
Vacation Homes: EVDC Amendments
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint meeting – TB, BOCC
a. Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) would take the lead in reviewing
proposed regulations, with Code amendments sent forward to the two governing
bodies after due consideration;
b. As an initial platform for discussion, the Estes Park Community Development
Department staff would draft Code amendments for subsequent review and
recommendation;
c. The staff would follow the recommendations of the Task Force in formulating
recommendations for the 9-and-over category, as a beginning-point for further
consideration;
d. Staff would incorporate prior direction from the March 30 draft for 8-and-under
regulations, as a beginning-point for further consideration;
e. The above tasks would take place on a timeline with staff-recommended code
language to be provided to the EVPC in October and November 2016;
f. Subsequent EVPC recommendations would be targeted for a joint Town Board /
BOCC public hearing and potential action in a December 2016 meeting.
Subsequent to the Aug. 30 meeting, the Estes Valley Planning Commission (EVPC) has
met four times so far to discuss vacation-rental Code amendments: October 18 (study
session); November 1 (special study session), November 15 (study session, regular
meeting), and November 29 (special meeting, public hearing, and recommendation).
It is possible that each jurisdiction will chose to modify its respective Building Codes to
address vacation-rental matters. Any such amendments would need to run on their own
timelines, not necessarily coinciding with timelines for the EVDC amendments. It is to
be hoped that any Building Code amendments will run an expeditious course and will
conclude in early 2017.
Proposal:
Amend EVDC Section 5.1.B as stated in Exhibit A [“PC Draft”], dated Nov. 29, 2016,
attached.
Staff recommends that Exhibit A [PP Draft – Version C] to the Town Board of Trustees
and the Board of County Commissioners.
Discussion:
“PP Draft” [Exhibit A]
16
Vacation Homes: EVDC Amendments
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint meeting – TB, BOCC
Exhibit A is a new (since Nov. 29th) set of draft regulations. Staff is referring to this draft
as the “PP Draft”, to indicate that it based on the Planning Commission’s Position
Paper, Version 4.0 (included with this memo). Version 4.0 was finalized immediately
following the Planning Commission’s Nov. 29 hearing and vote to recommend it.
This draft is discussed in more detail below under Planning Commission Discussion and
Position Paper.
NOTE: The PP Draft version included in this packet is slightly changed from the version
emailed to many and posted on the Town website Project page on Friday, Dec. 9. The
changes came from final legal review following discussion Friday afternoon with the
Town Attorney. Staff will flag these minor changes during the Thursday, Dec. 15 joint
meeting. All final changes were for clarity and consistency; none changed the
documents policy directives and regulatory approach.
“TF Draft”
Another draft, labeled the “TF Draft” (included with this memo), is being provided to the
Town and County Boards for the December 15 joint meeting as a courtesy to the Task
Force and at the request of County Community Development staff. The TF [standing for
Task Force] Draft has not been formally seen or reviewed by the Task Force, since that
group no longer has a formal existence; the Task Force’s final meeting was Aug. 3. The
label “TF Draft” is not intended to imply Task Force approval of the Draft – only to
indicate that it contains elements that parallel the Task Force memo.
Staff from the Estes Park Community Development Dept. and Larimer County
Community Development Dept. have faithfully tried to represent in code form the Task
Force positions as specified in the 23 August memo and as discussed in the August 30
joint meeting. The TF Draft does contain elements that go beyond specific
recommendations of the Task Force – primarily aimed at providing for appropriate
administration and enforcement, as would be done for every code amendment.
The Commission was provided the TF Draft prior to the Nov. 1 Study Session. The
Planning Commission acknowledged and thanked the Task Force and facilitator Terry
Gilbert for the work they accomplished, which was substantial. However, the Planning
Commission came to verbal consensus on Nov. 1 to proceed in a different direction with
their review and recommendation. The end result was the not being requested by staff
to make a recommendation on this TF Draft at the Nov. 29 meeting. Verbal direction
provided to staff at the EVPC’s Nov. 1 study session indicated EVPC’s wishes to
transmit only one EVPC-recommended Code amendment to the joint governing bodies.
Staff is honoring this wish and not asking the EVPC to make a judgment call on the TF
Draft. However, in the interest of not disrespecting the time and effort the Task Force
put into their conclusions, staff is providing the TF Draft to the two governing bodies
17
Vacation Homes: EVDC Amendments
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint meeting – TB, BOCC
prior to the December 15 joint meeting, for consideration on its own merits. The TF Draft
is essentially the same as the Planning Commission saw it on Nov. 1, except for minor
edits for clarity and completeness.
To be clear, staff is recommending Exhibit A, the PP Draft, for adoption. While the TF
Draft is not a bad solution, staff judges that it does have inefficiencies in some areas.
Staff concludes the PP Draft is the better option.
County Memorandum Regarding Task Force Recommendations
Larimer County Community Development Director has provided a memorandum, titled
“Vacation Rental Task Force Recommendations on Vacation Rentals for 9 or More
Occupants” and dated 7 December 2016 (included with this memo). The memorandum
is provided as a courtesy to the County Community Development staff.
Director Gilbert’s memorandum and comments therein do not reflect the views of the
Town of Estes Park / Estes Valley Community Development Department. It has no
standing as a staff recommendation. There is only one staff recommendation, which is
articulated in this Dec. 15 memorandum.
TF Comparison to PC Amendments
This document in the packet, more fully titled “Estes Valley Planning Area Code
Amendment differences between Task Force and Estes Valley Planning Commission”,
is also provided by Terry Gilbert. EV Community Development Dept. staff was not
provided this document in time to do a full review of it. It is also provided as a courtesy
to the County Community Development staff.
Planning Commission Discussion and Position Paper:
At the Nov. 29 EVPC study session, the Commission at length an almost-final draft of
the Position Paper – specifically, this was Version 3.5, which was displayed in
chambers and discussed by the group on that date. As noted, Version 4.0 was finalized
immediately following the PC meeting, and differed in only minor respects from Version
3.5.
Per specific recommendation and vote of the Planning Commission on Nov. 29 (six in
favor, none opposed, one member absent), the PP Draft was PP Draft was prepared
with the Position Paper as guide. The two documents are intended to be closely
aligned. Staff’s recommendation is to approve the PP Draft, (included with this memo),
in line with the Position Paper.
Following is a unitary discussion of the Position Paper and the PP Draft,
Residential vs. Accommodations/Commercial Zoning:
18
Vacation Homes: EVDC Amendments
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint meeting – TB, BOCC
The position paper divides vacation home regulations into two sub-sets: residential and
accommodations/commercial areas, both determined by specified zoning districts.
Accommodations/ Commercial Zoning Sub-set:
No cap is proposed in A, A-1, CD, and CO districts
Position paper identifies occupancy maximum limits at two per bedroom plus two
additional occupants. No maximum limit per vacation home is identified in the
Position Paper.
Compliance with IBC [International Building Code (i.e., commercial code)] vs.
IRC [International Residential Code] is left to the Chief Building Official’s
judgment in accordance with those codes and any amendments thereto.
Staff agrees that no Valley-wide cap is necessary or appropriate in non-residential
districts, nor is a maximum occupancy load per unit needed, as Fire and similar codes
address the latter. The IBC/IRC distinction is a separate matter – although certainly
related and relevant. We agree that it is appropriately left to the two Chief Building
Officials for the Town and County as staff leads. Guidance from the Town Board and
Board of County Commissioners to our individual jurisdictions is relevant and will be
sought at the Dec. 15 meeting, as appropriate.
Earlier discussion took place at Planning Commission and elsewhere about simply
defining a vacation home in the non-commercial districts to be the same as our current
term: “Hotel, small”, which is a current permitted use in most non-residential districts.
However, we ran out of time to study the Code and determine whether that would cause
unintended consequences. We did determine that most development standards – e.g.,
parking requirements – should reasonably apply to vacation homes in those districts.
Some individual existing vacation homes in A, A-1, etc., may not meet current parking
or other development-standard requirements, but the requirement should not be
burdensome on a collective basis.
Residential Zoning District Sub-set:
The position paper recommends an overall cap of 588 units in the eight
residential zoning districts in the Valley. This cap figure is to be reviewed
annually, with an initial review after April 1, 2017. A 10 percent growth in the cap
is suggested.
All VRs need to obtain 2017 licenses by March 31, 2017.
A clear regulatory distinction is made between 8-and-under occupant VRs and 9-
and-over VRs.
19
Vacation Homes: EVDC Amendments
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint meeting – TB, BOCC
8-and-Under: Occupancy limits per property are set at 2 per bedroom plus 2
additional (2 + 2 rule), maximum of eight.
8-and-Under: Other standards are as recommended by the Task Force.
8-and-Under: “Additional” (i.e., not currently licensed) properties may be
permitted as VRs, up to the overall cap limit.
9-and-Over: All VR properties that wish to legally provide for 9 or more occupants
shall go through a Special Review process.
9-and-Over: Properties wishing to accommodate 9 or more occupants have a
narrow window of opportunity to obtain their Reviews and become legal; the hard
deadline is April 1, 2017.
Staff agrees with the above residential-zone direction for VRs. The cap issue
deserves its own discussion and is addressed separately later in this memo. In some
respects, we found it necessary to go beyond the general policy direction above and
create very specific regulations. One major example of this is the PP Draft is the
transitional regulations for the period between adoption and the end of the Review
process for VRs. Other examples can be seen throughout the PP Draft. Specifics
are as follows:
There is a quite elaborately structured Transitional section in the Code
amendment, near the end. This is not called out in the Position Paper, but is
aligned with it in concept. This section is necessary in order to get from the
current skeletal regulations to the more complex model needed to fulfill the
directions given by the Task Force and the Planning Commission. In outline, the
transition would work as follows:
o Dec.16, 2016, through Dec. 31, 2016: In theory, it is possible that we will
receive new applications for operating registrations during this period. In
practice, few if any such registrations will be approved during this time, for
the practical reason that the new Code (effective Dec. 15) requires an
inspection before the registration is issued. Scheduling and performing
inspections on short notice, especially in the holiday period, is difficult if
not impossible.
o Jan. 1 through Mar. 31, 2017: The 2017 annual registration for VRs
begins. All VRs must submit a registration on this three-month period.
20
Vacation Homes: EVDC Amendments
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint meeting – TB, BOCC
Applications are filed in the Town Clerk’s office and date/time stamped in
order of receipt.
o These applications are first sorted into those in residential districts and
those in non-residential districts. The non-residential stack would not need
a lot of processing, except for completing required inspections before
registration approval. There would be no cap on this stack.
o A further sorting takes place for VR applications in the residential districts.
Those received in this three-month period are sorted into three queues:
1) First Priority: Those who as of now (Dec. 15) have a 2016
operating permit/registration;
2) Second Priority: Those who do not have a 2016 registration,
but can provide evidence of having an active VR during 2016, such
as by providing a signed VR contract with renter(s);
3) Third Priority: All others – e.g., brand-new VRs, VRs that
may have been operating but with no paperwork, etc.
o The queuing is used to determine two things immediately: (a) the order in
which required inspections are performed; and (b) the order in which
registrations accumulate under the 588 cap.
o The cap operates in this three-month period strictly according to the three
queues, and within each queue, according to the date/time the application
is received. If the cap is reached during the first queue before we get to
the second queue, no registrations will be issued under the second queue,
and those would go onto a waiting list. The same would happen if we
reached the end of the second queue, and so on. (Staff’s best guess is
that we will get all the way through the first and second queues before the
588 cap is reached.)
o The registration does not actually get issued until an inspection is
performed by Community Development Dept., and passed. This is a basic
inspection for life-safety, health, and compliance with basic rules such as
posting of the required notices inside the VR. Since all 2017 registrations
have to be issued by March 31, staff will be putting in many hours in these
three months. Barring further changes, 2017 is the only year all VRs will
21
Vacation Homes: EVDC Amendments
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint meeting – TB, BOCC
be inspected at least once. Some will no doubt need repeat inspections.
Again, a VR’s place in line – under the cap, or on a wait-list – comes from
the date of application, not date of inspection or date of registration
approval/issuance.
o Once a property has passed inspection and registration fees are paid, the
registration is issued. It is good for the calendar year in which issued – in
transitional year 2017, that would be through Dec. 31, 2017.
April 1 through June 1, 2017: During this period, applications and review of 9-
and-over VRs would begin.
o NOTE: Three things to bear in mind for 9-and-over VRs:
1) They already have to be registered as 8-and-under VRs
before they can apply for 9-and-over status. This may seem odd,
but actually, any residential structure, regardless of how many
bedrooms, can apply for an 8-and-under license.
2) Anyone wishing to try for a 9-and-over VR has to have 4 or
more bedrooms, due to the across-the-board 2 + 2 rule for
occupancy.
3) Inspections have to be performed and approval by the
inspectors obtained before the application can be approved.
o All 9-and-over VRs require approval by Planning Commission only, with
appeals available to the Town Board or Board of County Commissioners.
The process is similar to a Special Review, but, as it goes only to the
Planning Commission, the Code terms it a “Large Vacation Home Review”
(LV Review). Depending on workload, availability for special meetings,
and similar matters, some LV Review may take place after June 1;
however, the goal would be to schedule special meetings as needed
during April and May 2017 to accommodate as many LV Reviews as
feasible. Review order will be determined according to date the LV
application is received, and when the LV passes inspection. As the cap is
not a factor (since all 9-and-over applicants have already been registered
as 8-and-under VRs), the order does not need to be as strict under Code.
22
Vacation Homes: EVDC Amendments
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint meeting – TB, BOCC
No new 9-and-over VRs would be allowed for applications filed after June 1,
2017. This is a hard-line rule and could only be changed by subsequent
amendment to Code.
A key point to recall: At the present time, there are no vacation homes in the
Estes Valley licensed for 9-and-over occupants – and there has never been a
license, or any legal permission under zoning, to operate a VR at the 9-and-over
level. There are 90 “large occupancy” VRs licensed out there. We casually refer
to those as the “9-and-over” VRs in conversations, but that terminology is
technically flawed. The 90 VRs with licenses are in truth houses with 4 or more
bedrooms, which under the 2 + 2 rule, could be adaptable to 10 occupants or
more – but all of them have licenses for only 8 or fewer occupants. In this staff
discussion, we refer several times to “new” 9-and-over licenses, but that wording
isn’t intended to imply permission for houses that are not already licensed to
obtain new licenses for 9 or more operation.
Development Standards (Lot Size, Setbacks, Parking, etc.):
The Position Paper does not identify development standards for the 8-and-under
category; however, it is necessary to identify them in Code. The PP draft sets
development standards as those for single-family residential houses in the
corresponding districts. That is done for two reasons: (a) most of these properties
were built with single-family houses, and – assuming our zoning Codes were
crafted properly – should still be conforming; and (b) it’s important to keep in
mind that VRs, especially the 8-and-unders, could easily go back to being single-
family houses in the future - special setbacks or lot sizes could be detrimental to
that end.
Staff judges that development standards for 9-and-over VRs should be
interpreted in similar fashion. The Position Paper does note that a 1-acre
minimum lot size is appropriate for 9-and-over VRs, but that a Review could
determine whether a given property can be adjusted downward in a specific
case. Findings of fact by the Planning Commission would be required to deviate
below the 1-acre minimum.
Regarding development standards in general: Bear in mind that many property
owners have little or no ability to change some of these standards by themselves.
For example, a ¾-acre lot owner cannot enlarge the size of his/her lot without
acquiring land from an adjacent owner. No private owner can compel another
adjacent owner to do that, as a rule.
23
Vacation Homes: EVDC Amendments
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint meeting – TB, BOCC
Administration:
Proposed 2017 budgets for Town of Estes Park and Larimer County including
funding for the iCompass contract for one year, at approx. $25,000 for each. Both
Town and County should recognize that this is a permanent annual commitment,
including any cost increases – whether with iCompass or another equivalent
service. It is literally impossible to administer and enforce VR regulations as
proposed in the draft without such an external administration / enforcement
mechanism.
A key point is that licensing/permitting - although required by law - is neither
necessary nor sufficient to sustain permanent classification of VRs as allowed
uses in their districts. In other words, a VR does not lose its land use status as a
VR just because the owner does not complete the license or permit process.
Failure to license does mean the VR cannot be rented or leased to VR occupants
during the lapse period, unless/until a new license or permit is obtained.
However, the underlying land use does not go away. If a license is not obtained
for a previously legal VR, we might think of the VR without a license as a
“dormant” VR – one that could be revived by the current or new owner.
Meanwhile, if a license/permit expires or is revoked for a period, the VR is out of
business for that period.
As a qualifier to the preceding point: The only exception in which
licensing/permitting is required in order to confirm underlying VR land use would
be the initial licensing. Without an initial license, there is no way to demonstrate
in the first place that a VR existed during the initial licensing period. There are
other ways to go about that, but amending our Code to implement them will need
to wait for another day.
The Position Paper refers to a suggested 24-month grace period for VRs to
comply with building codes. This is not in the EVDC Code, and EVDC does not
address building-code amendments directly. However, the issue is obviously
relevant. A 24-moth compliance period would need to be administered separately
from the 90-day licensing period. Staff agrees with the suggestion that VRs
licensed within the 90 days should have the 24 months to install any required
improvements. This is not only more straightforward to administer; it also doesn’t
set a prospective VR owner up to install a lot of fancy hardware, only to discover
at the end that they do not get to rent the dwelling.
24
Vacation Homes: EVDC Amendments
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint meeting – TB, BOCC
Enforcement:
The Position Paper and PP Draft identify three levels of enforcement: Property
managers, law enforcement entities, and code officials.
Property managers are identified as the “front-line” enforcers. Each VR
license/permit application will be required to have signatures from both property
owner and property manager. The latter signature, along with the underlying
Code authority, will hold the manager accountable.
Law enforcement in the appropriate jurisdiction (Town of Estes Park Police Dept.
or Larimer County Sheriff’s Office) would handle violations for the same aspects
they handle now. This includes noise, on-street parking, trespassing, and others
– basically, any violation not covered in the EVDC or the Building Codes.
Code compliance (EVDC) will be handled by the Town’s Code Compliance
functions in the Community Development Dept.
Court jurisdiction for issues that escalate beyond warning level will be handled by
the court(s) of competent jurisdiction – the same as right now.
iCompass will be the primary data-gathering tool and also the primary point of
contact for those making complaints.
Staff believes this is workable in principle. There are many administrative details to work
through, to be sure. For example, protocols will have to be established among local
Community Development staff, the Town Clerk’s office, iCompass, and our Dispatch
Center on “who does what” when a complaint comes in, when a new VR is licensed,
and so on.
Valley-Wide Cap Issue:
This has been one of the more contentious governmental issues in the vacation-rental
discussion between the Town and County. Staff’s understanding is that consensus has
been difficult to find on whether an overall cap – i.e., a maximum number of vacation
homes in the Valley -- is appropriate.
Staff’s recommendation on this matter comes from a point of view that is around 90
percent pragmatic We recommend a cap in the following paragraphs, and we explain
how and why the cap number was chosen. But first, a few reasons why a cap is
appropriate:
Failure to adopt regulations [again] is not an acceptable option. The Estes Valley
has a problem with lack of adequate regulations for vacation homes - right here
and right now. Not adopting regulations, or failing to agree on appropriate
regulations, perpetuates this problem.
25
Vacation Homes: EVDC Amendments
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint meeting – TB, BOCC
Failure to adopt also does not end the community dialog. In fact, adopting
regulations won’t end it, either. But meaningful regulations that are clear, can be
administered, and can be enforced is a good basis on which to discuss and
review how the phenomenon is happening, and to craft revisions or adjustments
to regulations as needed. Continual revision of regulations is not a good thing, as
regulations should provide a stable platform for individual decision-making. But
any large, complex set of regulations needs to be reviewed periodically, to see if
it is working.
A cap that allows upward adjustment is about the only “compromise” outcome
here. If anyone can think of another middle ground, we’d like to hear about it. We
can’t.
We recommend a cap at 588 VRs in the residential zoning districts. Our reasoning is as
follows:)
A rational basis is needed for a cap – i.e., anchored in “real world” data.
iCompass has provided an estimate of approx. 750 VRs in the Valley, including
licensed and unlicensed VRs.
Approx. 78.3% of licensed/permitted VRs in the Valley are in the eight residential
districts.
Assuming similar proportional distribution in residential vs. non-residential
unlicensed/unpermitted VRs, we would expect approx. 78.3% of the 750 iCompass VRs
to be in residential districts, which results in approx. 588 VRs [750 * 0.783 = 587.349…]
This allows for all currently licensed residential-district VRs to remain licensed, if they
choose to do so. It allows for all the VRs who may be operating in the shadows to also
become legal, if the iCompass estimate is reasonably accurate, which we think it is. It
does not allow for very many new VRs to come online in future – again assuming
iCompass is correct and that the cap remains unchanged.
Split Town / County Jurisdiction:
Staff agrees with the Planning Commission position, articulated in previous meeting and
in the Position Paper, that it would be most unfortunate if the Town and County were to
wind up adopting separate vacation-rental regulations. Doing so would violate the
integrity of the Estes Valley Development Code.
At this time, except for three relatively modest exceptions, the EVDC is the applicable
code for all land use regulations in the Valley. This approach has served us well for
26
Vacation Homes: EVDC Amendments
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint meeting – TB, BOCC
approx. 16 years. That is the case not only for the two local governments, but for our
citizens.
“Integrity” may seem like an abstract argument, but there are practical difficulties as well
if the vacation-rental code is split into Town and County. For just one example, the
regulations refer to specific zoning districts in the EVDC. The Town of Estes Park and
Larimer County have different zoning district classifications, uses, and development
standards. The Town has an RM District, but the County does not; the County has a T
(for Tourist) District, but the Town does not. Issues like these make it impossible to
adopt slightly different versions of the code language.
If interest exists or emerges in adopting different code provisions for Town and County,
the only way to accomplish that is to continue (table) the matter for some possibly major
rewrites. Town Community Development staff would estimate at least three months to
come up with a suitable draft. We (Town staff) would not be in a position to estimate a
timeline for County staff to work on their code.
Finally, in good planning practice, any major change in a set of regulations should be
remanded to the Planning Commission for input. This factor should be accounted for in
any timeline involving a possible split.
Staff strongly recommends that the unitary nature of land-use regulations ought to be
retained. If that means compromises in the final product, then compromises should be
made.
Staff Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
The text amendment complies with EVDC §3.3.D (Code Amendments – Standards for
Review).
§3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review
“All rezonings and text amendments to the EVDC shall meet the following criteria:”
1. “The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected;”
Staff Finding:
The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected. Vacation rentals in the Estes Valley have been a rapidly growing land-
use phenomenon, by all reports. The 2016 Housing Needs Assessment and the
charge followed by the Task Force are two elements in support of the regulatory
approach.
27
Vacation Homes: EVDC Amendments
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint meeting – TB, BOCC
2. “The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code
would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of
the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development
patterns in the Estes Valley;”
Staff Finding:
The proposed text amendment is compatible and consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the
Estes Valley. A development plan is not required.
The code amendment aligns with both the Estes Valley Comprehensive Plan
housing policies and the 2016 Estes Park Housing Needs Assessment
recommendations.
3. “The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability
to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the
application were approved.”
Staff Finding:
The proposed code amendment was discussed with providers of public water,
sewage disposal, electric services, fire protection, and transportation services.
Providers expressed no concerns with the proposed amendment. Law
enforcement matters have been reviewed, including discussion with Sheriff Smith
at the July Task Force meeting, with no identified significant issues. Additional
protocols will have to be established with internal and external parties to ensure
proper administration.
Advantages:
Complies with the EVDC Section §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review.
There appears to be a broad base of public support for addressing vacation homes.
The Position Paper and the PC Draft strike what staff and the Planning Commission
believe to be a good balance between the rights and privileges of individual Vacation
Rental property owners and managers, the rights and privileges of those adjacent
and nearby to any given Vacation Rental, and the needs and wishes of the
community as a whole.
28
Vacation Homes: EVDC Amendments
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint meeting – TB, BOCC
Disadvantages:
Increasing regulations will have costs associated with administration and
enforcement. One specific such cost is the virtual necessity of outside monitoring,
such as via the iCompass service. This is built into the Town and County budgets
beginning in 2017; expenses will be ongoing. It is almost certain that at some point,
additional staff and other resources will be needed in Community Development and
perhaps other departments (Town or County) as well. It is possible these
staffing/resource needs will not be permanent, as initial implementation of the
regulations will have a finite timeline.
Numerous arguments have been made on how to regulate vacation homes. These
run the full spectrum, from allowing vacation homes with only minimal regulation, to
banning them altogether. There are resort/destination communities in various parts
of the U.S. that have taken each of these extreme approaches… and just about all
points in-between. Staff would suggest that moderation is a cautious and positive
approach here. We believe the PC Draft reaches this goal.
Action Recommended:
Review the PC Draft text amendment for compliance with Estes Valley Development
Code (EVDC) §3.3.D Code Amendments, Standards for Review and forward a
recommendation to the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Larimer County Board
of County Commissioners for a final decision to approve, deny, or approve with
conditions.
It is staff’s recommendation that that Exhibit A [“PC Draft”] be recommended for
approval as drafted.
Level of Public Interest:
High: Addressing vacation homes in the Estes Valley
High: Code amendment
Sample Motions:
APPROVAL
I move that the
[Estes Park Town Board of Trustees]
or
[Larimer County Board of County Commissioners]
approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in
Exhibit A (PP Draft), including findings of fact and conclusions of law, and as
recommended by staff and by the Planning Commission.
29
Vacation Homes: EVDC Amendments
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint meeting – TB, BOCC
CONTINUANCE
I move to CONTINUE this agenda item to [date certain] because… (state reason(s) for
continuance - findings).
DENIAL
I move that the
[Estes Park Town Board of Trustees]
or
[Larimer County Board of County Commissioners]
approve the text amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code as presented in
Exhibit A (PP Draft), finding that . . . (state findings of fact for denial).
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A [PP Draft], “Estes Valley Development Code Draft Text Amendment: Sec.
5.1.B (Vacation Home) & related sections” – Version D
2. Position Document Version 4.0 FINAL: Planning Commission – November 29, 2016
3. Position Document 4.0 Final Key Points 2016-12-09 [from Planning Commission
member Mike Moon and others]
4. [TF Draft} “Estes Valley Development Code Draft Text Amendment: November 15,
2016 – Version TF (Task Force)”
5. 15 Dec 2016 PH Memo to Trustees-County Commissioners – Terry Gilbert
6. Task Force Comparison to Planning Commission Amendments – Terry Gilbert
[table]
7. Town of Estes Park Ordinance No. 29-16: An Ordinance Amending the Estes Valley
Development Code Regarding Vacation Homes
8. Larimer County Resolution Approving Amendments to the Estes Valley
Development Code Regarding Vacation Homes
Other Information:
Public comments received by Planning Commission can be reviewed at:
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/townofestespark/vacationrentals
30
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A [“PP Draft”] [version C]
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint TB+BOCC Meeting
EXHIBIT A
[PP DRAFT]
Estes Valley Development Code
Draft Text Amendment: Sec. 5.1.B (Vacation Home) & related sections
December 15, 2016 – PP Draft (Based on Planning Commission Position
Paper: approved Nov. 29, 2016) – [Version D]
§5.1 SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS
B. Vacation Home.
1.All vacation homes shall be subject to the following:
a.Annual Operating Registration.
(1) All vacation homes shall obtain an operating registration on an annual
basis, and the license shall be effective on and following the date of issuance
for all of the remaining calendar year in which it is issued, unless the license is
suspended or revoked for cause.
(2) If the property is located within Town limits, the business license shall be
considered the operating registration. If the property is within the
unincorporated Estes Valley, an operating registration shall be obtained
from the Town of Estes Park Town Clerk's Office.
(3) Beginning January 1, 2017, the annual period for operating registration shall
begin January 1 of each year and end on March 31 of each year. Issuance of
a license between April 1 and December 31 in any given calendar year shall
take place on a schedule determined by the Town Clerk’s office and such
schedule shall be at the sole discretion of the Town.
(4) Pro-ration and partial reduction in any required registration fees for an
operating registration issued after January 1 in any given year shall not be
authorized.
(5) No more than one (1) operating registration shall be issued and effective in
any given calendar year for any given vacation home. An active registration
for a specific vacation home shall be transferable to a different owner in
accordance with procedures in this Code and as established by the Town
Clerk’s Office.
(6) Effective December 16, 2016, vacation home operating registrations in
residential zoning districts (designated herein as zoning districts E,
E -1, R, R -1, R -2, RE, RE -1, and RM) shall be held at a maximum total
(“cap”) of 588 registrations in effect at any given time. This cap shall be
reviewed annually by the Planning Commission and governing Boards, in or
near the month of April beginning in or near April 2017. Applications received
at any time such that their approval would cause the cap to be exceeded shall
be held and kept on file in the order they are received and deemed complete
by the Town Clerk’s Office. Registrations held on such list shall be issued
during the calendar year as operating registrations may become available.
(7) Vacation homes in non-residential zoning districts (designated as all zoning
31
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A [“PP Draft”] [version C]
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint TB+BOCC Meeting
districts except those enumerated in the preceding subsection) shall not be
included in or subject to this cap.
(8) Beginning December 16, 2016, every vacation home for which an operating
application is made shall require that the vacation home undergo and pass an
initial inspection in accordance with this Code prior to issuance of the
operating registration.
(9) Beginning December 16, 2016, no operating registration for a vacation home
shall be issued unless the vacation home structure has a valid Certification of
Occupancy issued by the appropriate authority.
(10) Issuance of an operating registration for a vacation home shall not constitute a
zoning entitlement for a property’s use as a vacation home, nor shall absence
of an operating registration for a vacation home constitute removal or
abrogation of a property’s zoning permissibility for use as a vacation home.
However, both appropriate zoning permission and compliance and a valid
current operating registration are necessary elements in order for operation as
a vacation home to occur.
(11) Operating registrations that are deemed active as of December 31 in any
given year shall have priority for renewal in the following calendar year over
any new operating registration applications, provided a re-application for said
active registration by the same owner is received and deemed complete, all
required inspections passed, and fees paid by March 31 of the renewal
calendar year.
(12) Local Representative. The registration shall designate a local resident or
local property manager in the Estes Valley who can be contacted by
telephone and is available twenty-four (24) hours per day, with regard to any
violation of the provisions of this Section. The person set forth on the
application shall be the representative of the owner for all purposes with
regard to the operation of the vacation home. The local representative may
be the same person as the property owner. An annual operating registration
shall not be valid unless the property owner, and the designated local
representative (if different), sign the operating registration application
acknowledging all vacation home regulations. If the local representative
changes during the calendar year, it shall be the responsibility of the property
owner to notify the Town Clerk within fifteen (15) days of change, and to
insure the new local representative is knowledgeable of all vacation home
regulations. If the property owner changes during the calendar year, it shall be
the responsibility of the new property owner of record to transfer the operating
registration into his/her name and to ensure all other regulations in this
Section are in compliance.
(13) State Sales Tax License. A condition of issuance of the annual operating
registration shall be proof of a current sales tax license, provided by the
applicant.
(14) Violations. The relevant Decision-Making Entity may deny or withhold the
renewal of an annual operating registration until an alleged violation related
to such property, use or development is corrected, in accordance with
§12.4.A.1. The relevant Decision-Making Entity may revoke the annual
operating registration at any time in accordance with §12.4.A.2. Operating
the vacation home during any such period of suspension or revocation shall
be a violation of this Code. Appeals to this section shall be made in
accordance with the appeals process in the Estes Valley Development Code.
(15) Nothing described herein shall limit the Town or County, within their
32
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A [“PP Draft”] [version C]
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint TB+BOCC Meeting
respective jurisdictions, from exercising other remedies and enforcement
powers pursuant to Chapter 12 of this Code or other penalties and
enforcement powers as may be available at law.
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 (Business Licenses).
c.Residential Character in Residential Zoning Districts. V acation homes in residential
zoning districts as designated in this Section shall not be designed or operated in a
manner that is out of character with residential use of a dwelling unit by one
household. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Design shall be compatible, in terms of building scale, mass and
character, with low-intensity, low-scale residential use.
(2) For purposes of §5.1.B of this Code, “bedroom” and “sleeping room” are
deemed equivalent terms to each other, and equivalent to a sleeping space
pursuant to the currently adopted and applicable International Building Codes.
Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential
use. No kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in guest rooms, sleeping
rooms or bedrooms.
d.Postings.
(1) Vacation homes in all zoning districts shall have a clearly legible notice posted
on-site. The posted notice shall be provided by the Town Clerk’s Office at the
time the operating-registration is initially applied for, shall be posted in a
prominent location inside the vacation home prior to or during the initial
inspection, and shall remain posted in the same location for the duration of its
use as a vacation home. The posted notice shall include standard contents as
determined and approved by the Community Development Department.
(2) Property Line Boundaries: The property owner or local representative shall
inform all occupants of property boundaries.
(3) Property owner or local representative shall include in all print or online
advertising the operating registration number in the first line of the property
description.
(4) Advertising shall accurately represent the allowed use of the property,
including the maximum number of allowed occupants. Inaccurate or false
advertising shall be a violation.
(5) Neighbor Notification. Prior to issuance of the initial annual operating
registration, 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 boundary of the subject property.
(b) Notices shall provide a name and telephone number of the local
representative and property owner. Any change in the local representative
or property owner shall require that the name and telephone number of the
new representative or owner 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. Mailed notice of such
changes shall follow the same procedure as the initial notification as
specified herein.
(c) Copies of mailing certificates shall be provided to the Community
33
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A [“PP Draft”] [version C]
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint TB+BOCC Meeting
Development Director upon issuance of initial annual operating registration.
e.Parking. Minimum Required Parking. Except in the CD Downtown Commercial
zoning district, the number of off-street parking spaces available to a vacation home
shall not be less than two (2).
f.Employee Housing Units. Employee housing units as designated in §5.2.C.2 shall
not be designated as vacation home s as defined and regulated herein.
g.Attainable Housing Units. Attainable housing units as designated in §11.4 shall not
be designated as vacation home s as defined and regulated herein.
h.Accessory Dwelling Units. Vacation homes shall not be allowed on residential lots of
record containing an accessory dwelling unit as defined and regulated herein.
i.Density. Only one (1) vacation home shall be allow ed per residential dwelling unit.
One (1) or more vacation homes may be allowed on an individual lot of record,
subject to all regulations in this Code and other regulations as may be applicable.
2.All vacation homes shall also be subject to the following:
a.Maximum Occupancy in Residential Zoning Districts: 8-and-Under occupants.
Except for 9-and-over vacation homes that may be approved and registered under the
provisions of this Code via LV application file on or before June 1, 2017, the maximum
allowable occupancy for an individual vacation home shall be eight (8) occupants.
Occupancy shall be further limited to a maximum of two (2) individuals per sleeping
room plus two (2) individuals per vacation home.
b.Maximum Occupancy in Residential Zoning Districts: 9-and-Over occupants. A
residential structure with four (4) or more sleeping room s may
app ly for Large Vacation Home Review approval as a “9 -and -
over vacation home”, in accordance with the regulations in
§5.1.B.3. The maximum occupancy in a 9 -and -over vacation
home shall be as specified in the Large Vacation Home Review
terms of approval; provided that o ccupancy shall be limited to a maximum
of two (2) individuals per sleeping room plus two (2) individuals per vacation home.
c.Maximum Occupancy in Non -Residential Zoning Districts.
Occupancy shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) individuals per sleeping room
plus two (2) individuals per vacation home. No overall maximum occupancy for a
vacation home in a non-residential zoning district shall be applicable, provided that the
vacation home is deemed to be in compliance with all Building, Fire, and Health
Codes and that a valid operating registration is issued.
d.For purposes of this Code section, “occupancy” shall be a stay of more than 12
consecutive hours by any individual. All individuals staying more than 12 consecutive
hours shall be deemed occupants, regardless of age or status.
e.Number of Parties, Vacation homes in residential zone districts as those districts are
defined herein shall be rented, leased or furnished to no more than one (1) party,
occupying the vacation home as a single group. Owners of the vacation home shall
not be allowed to occupy the vacation home while a party is present.
f.Home Occupations. Home occupations shall not be operated on the site of a vacation
home, nor shall vacation homes offer ancillary services to guests.
g.Vacation homes shall be required to meet applicable Building, Health and Fire codes.
h.Except as specifically provided for elsewhere in this Code, general development
standards (Chapter 7) as required by the underlying zoning district shall be
applicable. In residential zoning districts, development standards shall be those for
34
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A [“PP Draft”] [version C]
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint TB+BOCC Meeting
single-family detached dwellings in the zoning district. In non-residential zoning
districts, development standards shall be those for “hotel, small” in the zoning district.
i.Vacation homes, whether new or existing structures, shall be subject to the
requirements of Sec. 7.9 (Exterior Lighting) for new development.
j.Initial Time Frame for Compliance. All vacation homes in every zoning district shall
be required to obtain a new or renewed, as the case may be, operating registration
by a deadline no later than March 31, 2017.
3.Large Vacation Home Review (LV Review) for 9-and-Over Vacation Homes in
Residential Zoning Districts.
a.The owner of record of a vacation home that has obtained an approved valid
operating registration on or before March 31, 2017 may make application for Large
Vacation Home Review under the procedures of this Section and Code to allow nine
(9) or more individuals to occupy the vacation home, provided that:
(1) The application is submitted to and deemed complete by the Department no
later than June 1, 2017; and
(2) The vacation home for which Large Vacation Home Review application is
made has four (4) or more sleeping rooms; and
(3) The vacation home is in compliance with all applicable Building, Health, and
Fire Codes, or is brought into compliance with said Codes by deadline dates
as specified in accordance with the Codes.
b.The Large Vacation Home Review application shall be reviewed and may be
approved by motion and affirmative vote of the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission’s decision shall be final, except that an appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision may be made to the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees or
the Board of Larimer County Commissioners, whichever has jurisdiction.
c.Large Vacation Home Review for a 9-and-over vacation home shall comply with the
following policies and procedures:
(1) The procedure for application, review, and approval shall comply with the
“Procedure Checklist for Large Vacation Home Review: 9-and-Over Vacation
Homes”, promulgated and maintained by the Community Development
Department;
(2) The required “Vacation Home Safety Inspection Report” and “Vacation Home
Location Inspection Report” shall be provided to the Planning Commission
prior to any Planning Commission approval of a Large Vacation Home Review;
(3) The minimum lot size for a 9-and-over vacation home shall be one (1) acre,
unless the Planning Commission makes a specific finding of fact that the
vacation home is in conformance with applicable use and development
standards with a lot size of less than one (1) acre;
(4) The minimum front, side, and rear setback from any lot boundary shall be
corresponding minimum front, side, or rear setback of the underlying zoning
district, unless the Planning Commission makes a specific finding of fact that
the vacation home is in conformance with applicable use and development
standards with a setback of less than the zoning district’s stated minimum;
(5) An approved Large Vacation Home shall in no case be occupied by more than
two (2) occupants per bedroom plus two (2) additional occupants.
d.No Large Vacation Home Review approval shall be granted for a 9-and-over vacation
35
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A [“PP Draft”] [version C]
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint TB+BOCC Meeting
home for which application is submitted to the Department after June 1, 2017.
e.Denial of a Large Vacation Home Review zoning permission for use as a 9-and-over
vacation home shall not void an existing operating license for an 8-and-under vacation
home, nor shall such denial in itself void zoning permissibility for use as an 8-and-
under vacation home; provided that 8-and-under vacation home zoning requirements
in this Code and other applicable regulations remain applicable.
4.Inspections
a.Beginning December 16, 2016, inspections of all vacation homes per the
requirements of this Code shall be completed prior to initial approval of any operating
registration.
b.All vacation homes with registrations approved during calendar year 2017 shall be
inspected at least one (1) time during calendar year 2017.
c.After December 31, 2017, all vacation homes shall be inspected on an every-third
(3rd)-calendar-year schedule. This inspection schedule is further qualified as follows:
(1) Vacation homes with even-numbered street addresses shall be inspected
during calendar year 2020, and every third (3rd) year thereafter;
(2) Vacation homes with odd-numbered street addresses shall be inspected
during calendar year 2021, and every third (3rd) year thereafter.
d.Inspections shall be completed by the Department in accordance with the applicable
inspection checklist as promulgated and maintained by the Community Development
Department. The checklist shall be either the “Procedure Checklist for 8-and-Under
Vacation Homes” or the “Procedure Checklist for Large Vacation Home Review: 9-
and-Over Vacation Homes”, whichever may be applicable. These checklists are
hereby adopted and incorporated by reference in this Code.
5.Transitional Regulations. In order to establish an equitable method of transitioning
from pre-existing vacation-home regulations and those taking effect on December 16,
2016 and beyond, the following interim regulations shall be effective. In case of any
conflict between regulations elsewhere in this Code and the transitional regulations,
the transitional regulations shall control:
a.All 2017 operating-registration applications for vacation homes that have active
operating registrations as of December 15, 2016, shall have first priority in
application processing and operating-registration approval for 2017.
b.Within such application first-priority queue as may result from applications filed
under subsection a., sequencing of registration issuance shall be determined by the
date/time received filing stamp by the Town Clerk’s Office on the face of each
application.
c.All 2017 operating-registration applications for vacation homes that do not have
active operating registrations as of December 15, 2016, but for which a written
signed contract for vacation-home occupancy during 2016 is provided to the Town
Clerk’s Office, shall have second priority in application processing and operating -
registration approval for 2017.
d.Within such application second-priority queue as may result from applications filed
under subsection c., sequencing of registration issuance shall be determined by the
date/time received filing stamp by the Town Clerk’s Office on the face of each
application.
36
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A [“PP Draft”] [version C]
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint TB+BOCC Meeting
e.All 2017 operating-registration applications for vacation homes that do not satisfy
the requisite conditions in subsection a. or c. shall have third priority in application
processing and operating-registration approval for 2017.
f.Within such application third-priority queue as may result from applications filed
under subsection e., sequencing of registration issuance shall be determined by the
date/time filing stamp by the Town Clerk’s Office on the face of each application.
g.In the event the cap for vacation homes in residential zoning districts in §5.1.B.2 is
reached at any point in the 2017 queuing process, applications shall be maintained
on a waiting list in the order established within priority queues as specified above.
h.All operating registrations approved and issued between December 16, 2016 and
March 31, 2017 shall initially be for 8-and-under occupants only. The Large Vacation
Home Review shall determine whether or not operating-registration-approved
vacation homes with four (4) or more sleeping rooms may be approved as 9-and-
over vacation homes.
Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts.
Table 4-4
Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts
Table 4-4: Permitted Uses: Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
Specific
Use
Residential Zoning Districts
"P" = Permitted by Right
"S" = Permitted by Special Review
“LV” = Permitted by Large Vacation Home
Review
"—" = Prohibited
Additional Regulations
(Apply in All Districts
Unless Otherwise Stated)
RE-
1 RE E-1 E R R-1 R-2 RM
Low-Intensity
Accommodations
Bed and
Breakfast
Inn
̶̶̶̶̶̶S P §5.1B
Vacation
Home:
8-and-
under
Occupants
P P P P P P P P §5.1B
Vacation
Home:
9-and-over
Occupants
LV LV LV LV LV LV LV LV
§5.1B (Large Vacation Home
Reviews may be approved by
Planning Commission only,
subject to specified criteria)
37
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A [“PP Draft”] [version C]
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint TB+BOCC Meeting
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 P — — —
§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY
S TR U C TU R E S
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
RequirementsAA-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)
§7.9 EXTERIOR LIGHTING
B. Applicability. All new development shall comply with the standards set forth in this Section.
Vacation homes as designated and regulated in §5.1.B of this Code shall comply with the
standards set forth in this Section, whether new or existing.
§ 12.7 - ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
A. Nonemergency Matters.
In the case of a violation of this Code that does not constitute an emergency or require immediate
attention, written notice of the nature of the violation shall be given to the property owner, agent,
occupant or the Applicant for any relevant permit or registration. Notice shall be given in person,
or by certified U.S. Mail, or by posting notice on the premises. The notice shall specify the Code
provisions allegedly in violation, and—unless a shorter time frame is allowed by this Chapter—
shall state that the individual has a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of the receipt of the
notice in which to correct the alleged violations before further enforcement action shall be taken.
The notice shall also state any appeal and/or variance procedures available pursuant to this
Code.
38
Estes Valley Development Code
Vacation Homes – Exhibit A [“PP Draft”] [version C]
Dec. 15, 2016 Joint TB+BOCC Meeting
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)
[REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
39
Estes Valley Planning Commission |FINAL 4.0 November 29, 2016
Estes Valley Planning Commission:
Vacation Rental Position Document
November 29, 2016
40
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
Core principles:
The issue of vacation rentals (VRs) in our community is a complex and often
divisive social and financial issue. The final decisions made by the Town of Estes
Park Trustees and Larimer County Board of Commissioners based upon our
recommendations, those of the Vacation Rental Taskforce, public input and their
own perspectives will radically impact what the Estes Valley becomes over the next
decade.
It is the unanimous desire of the Estes Valley Planning Commission members that
whatever solution is finally adopted be a comprehensive valley wide solution not
the first step in dissolving the unique and critical partnership that is the basis for
the Estes Valley Development Code.
The recommendations in this Vacation Rental Position Document are fully
supported by all members of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. While we
clearly understand that we are the destination portal to one of the most popular
national parks and that visitation to Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) is
critical to our economy we are equally focused on retaining the vibrant community
nature of Estes Park that has drawn each of us to this wonderful valley. Hence, our
recommendations reflect our perspective that it is critical to retain the residential
community nature of the Town of Estes Park and the greater Estes Valley while
balancing the need for guest housing accommodations.
In our commissioner roles, we represent both the Town and the unincorporated
Estes Valley within the Estes Valley Development Code boundaries. We take that
responsibility seriously and have collectively invested thousands of hours in public
hearings, study sessions, joint sessions with the Estes Park Trustees and the
Larimer County Commissioners, review of national and regional planning reports
on vacation rentals and affordable/workforce housing, review of the Vacation
Rental Taskforce documents and in individual discussions with residents of the
valley.
The basis for our recommendations are data driven and draw significantly from
established best planning processes, many defined in the CAST Report and the
Estes Park Area Housing Needs Study. We have worked hard to incorporate the
perspective of what our recommendations will create for all of our community
during the next decade, both the VR business community and the larger
community of residents of this gorgeous valley we call home.
41
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
Key Decision Matrix:
1.Retention of a vibrant residential community across the Estes valley.
a.Residential neighborhoods remain vibrant and residential in
character.
b.Residents of the Estes Valley have a 24x7x365 single point for
registering non‐emergency VR property complaints which also
functions as a data logged property manager/owner notification
system.
c.Residential neighbor VR issues are clearly addressed in a timely
fashion by property managers/ owners and enforced by the
governmental jurisdictions.
2.Acknowledgement of the reality/impact of vacation rental business in
our community.
a.Focus all VR regulation on creating a VR business environment that
fosters license/operating permit compliance not underground
activity. Goal: 95+% compliance.
b.Ensure that this accommodation business delivers a safe code
compliant visitor experience.
c.Bottom line: ensure that these VR businesses are visible and
compliant, safe and are paying appropriate lodging taxes.
42
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
Executive Summary:
The Estes Valley Planning Commission is an advisory board established jointly by
the Town of Estes Park Trustees and the Larimer County Board of Commissioners.
We are your resource for expertise in land use issues and recommendations. As
such, the following are our recommendations for the management of Vacation
Rentals across the Estes Valley and modifications to the Estes Valley Development
Code in support of these recommendations.
VR COMPLIANCE, ESTABLISHMENT OF LIMITS ON VR RESIDENTIAL INCURSION
AND HANDLING OF 9+ VR OPERATIONS
We feel that the issue of ensuring that the VR business environment within the
Estes Valley is visible and compliant is paramount to the successful
implementation of any VR regulation.
To this purpose, we are recommending that the period of issuing Business
Licenses/Operating Permits for ALL VR properties be extended until March 31,
2017.
VR properties appear across all zoning districts within the Estes Valley. They are a
complex mix of conforming 8 and under properties and non‐conforming 9+
properties.
Clearly the accommodation (A and A1) and commercial (CD and CO) zones are
where our zoning regulations have targeted guest accommodations. Within these
zones, we see no reason for a cap on vacation rentals and recommend vacation
rentals be allowed with occupancy limits of 2 per bedroom plus 2. All VR
properties operating within these zones must be licensed/permitted with the
appropriate governmental jurisdictions.
Because these vacation rentals are businesses operating within accommodation
and commercial zones, they may fall under the regulation of the International
Building Code (IBC). That issue, however, is not within our purview, it is an issue
dealt with by the Chief Building Official (CBO). We do recommend that should
these units fall under the IBC that they be given 24 months to fully comply as a
means to mitigate the inherent cost of the IBC code requirements.
The issues of vacation rentals within residential zones, however, are inherently
different from the accommodation zones. Here we have, because of the sheer
number of current vacation rentals, the direct impact of these businesses upon the
quality, character, and viability of our neighborhoods and the impact of vacation
43
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
rentals on affordable/workforce housing the need to regulate the existing VR
businesses and limit the amount of additional VR business incursion into zones
defined as residential. With nearly 12% (750 units out of 6500) of our available
housing inventory being converted into vacation rentals over the past 16 years this
has negatively impacted affordable/workforce housing in the Estes Valley.
Housing prices have been driven up by second home, out of state and corporate
buyers; long term rental (12 months+) prices have increased; and long term rentals
have become scarce. This has direct impacts on the livability and viability of our
community, recruitment and retention of key talent and housing for our
workforce. Neighborhoods meanwhile have been negatively impacted by a host of
property management and enforcement issues.
In the residential zones, we are recommending a cap to limit the uncontrolled
incursion of vacation rentals and their direct impact on neighborhood quality and
affordable/workforce housing. Existing and new vacation rentals in residential
zones would be permitted as 2/bedroom plus 2 with a maximum occupancy of 8.
Effective April 1, 2017, we recommend the establishment of a cap on future 8 and
under VR operations within residential zones. The cap would be based upon the
total licensed/permitted VR properties effective March 31, 2017 (total of 8 and
under and 9+ in residential zones). The cap would allow for a maximum of 10%
growth in the future 8 and under VR business within residential zones.
Effective April 1, 2017, we recommend that NO NEW 9+ VR operations be allowed
in any of the residential zones.
RESIDENTIAL 9+ VR PROPERTIES ARE UNILATERALLY NON‐COMFORMING
OPERATIONS, LICENSING/PERMITTING VIA SPECIAL REVIEW
All 9+ VR properties who have applied for a Town of Estes Park Business License
or Larimer County Operating Permit by March 31, 2017 shall submit the required
documentation and inspection results required by a streamlined special review
process heard by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Special Review details
in the Specific Recommendations Section.
44
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
TASKFORCE RECOMMEDATIONS
We very much respect the work that the Vacation Rental Taskforce completed this
summer and support 12 of their 15 recommendations and their incorporation into
appropriate code language for both 8 and under and 9+ vacation rentals where
appropriate. Details are in the Specific Recommendations Section.
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
The final element of our recommendations involves the inspection,
licensing/permitting and enforcement of vacation rental properties.
A lassie faire approach to vacation rentals has allowed this industry to grow
unfettered since the introduction of the EVDC in 2000. This has allowed a
significant underground business environment to develop with questionable
management practices.
The question of continuing to allow an illegal activity seems inherently wrong to
us. We believe that it is imperative to create a fair and equitable inspection,
licensing/permitting and enforcement protocol that makes vacation rentals legal,
accountable and safe.
While there seems to be a belief that the Town and County should be primarily
responsible for enforcement, we believe that the major enforcement emphasis
should instead be placed upon the property managers and owners for they are the
financial recipients from this business enterprise.
Property managers must be accountable for the property they are paid to manage.
This makes them the first point of contact for all but life threatening emergencies.
This makes them responsible for enforcing rental agreements and code
requirements.
This is a significant change from the status quo where 911 has been the de facto
vacation rental complaint mechanism. To make this possible, we strongly
support the deployment of Host Compliance as the single point vacation
rental complaint/issue management portal. Accurate data is a major
requirement for both the Town and County to make valid future decisions on the
vacation rental business and Host Compliance appears to have the ability to
deliver that data.
However, data by itself will do nothing to establish a clear enforcement message.
Both governmental jurisdictions must be willing to enforce violations through
their separate enforcement processes up to and including District Court.
45
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
Supporting Data:
CAST Report Summary
In 2014 the Colorado Association of Ski Towns, CAST, announced a report
would be forthcoming on Vacation Home Rentals (VHR’s), the issues,
emerging trends and best practices. The Estes Park Board of Trustees
decided at that time to take no action regarding VHR’s until this report was
published. Data was gathered from Breckenridge, Crested Butte, Durango,
Estes Park (a CAST member), Frisco, Jackson, Mt. Crested Butte, Ouray,
Park City UT, and Steamboat Springs. The June 2015 report was well
researched and comprehensive; it began with the focus on revenue but, due
to the findings, shifted the focus to include the impacts of VHR’s in terms of
loss of long‐term rental housing and community character. The following
information is taken from the CAST report:
Regarding loss of long‐term rental housing it was reported that the
VHR industry had grown beyond its original status within the
“sharing economy”. The CAST research found that many units now
listed as VHR’s previously housed members of the workforce and
were homes for families but are now tourist accommodations. Many
are investor owned and rented at the highest rates possible and as
frequently as possible. With the decrease in the rental supply, due
at least in part to conversion to VHR’s, rents have been rising. Loss of
long term rental housing previously rented by members of the local
workforce has now become the number one concern of the tourist
communities participating in the study.
Across the country communities have become alarmed about
changes in the character of their residential neighborhoods as they
transition into lodging districts. Neighbors are being replaced by a
transient population. In mountain towns visitors are the mainstay of
the economy but residents are concerned about changes in
community character. Over time this may impact the visitor
experience as well. Negative visitor experience may result from
dissatisfaction among visitors who want to experience the “real”
community they are visiting, yet discover that the increased number
of VHR’s have displaced locals and turned neighborhoods into
lodging districts. Unlike commercial lodging, online hosting sites do
46
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
not ensure that residences meet minimum health and safety
standards, are not limited to locations within commercial zones, and
many are not licensed and do not collect taxes. This has potential to
have a negative impact on the visitor experience if there are
publicized incidents of visitors who are hurt or endangered by unsafe
VHR’s that are not up to lodging codes.
In neighborhoods, VHR related complaints are commonly related to
parking, noise, trespassing, open fires, garbage, illegal rentals,
exterior lights left on overnight and for long periods of time and too
many occupants.
Estes Park was listed as a “Best Practice” community in Nuisance
Mitigation for limiting VHR occupancy to a maximum of two
persons per bedroom plus two persons with an 8‐person maximum.
47
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
Estes Valley Housing Data ‐ Overview
Larimer County Assessor’s database, 07/15/16
There are approximately 6500 residential units in the Valley
Approximately 3100 are owned by non‐Valley residents
o 3100/6500 = 48% of residences are owned by non‐residents
20% by non‐Valley Colorado owners
28% by out of state owners
Host Compliance (iCompass) data, 07/16
750 vacation rentals in the Estes Valley Planning Area
Estes Valley vacation rental data ‐ per Town license/permit applications as of
11/01/16
498 licensed/permitted vacation rentals
265 in Estes Park
233 in Larimer County
Note: 498/750 = 66% of vacation rentals are licensed
Of the licensed/permitted vacations rentals
353 are 3 bedrooms or less
112 are 4 bedrooms or more (potential 9+ occupancy)
33 have an unknown number of bedrooms
78% of the Estes Valley VRs have non‐Estes Valley owners
46% of the Estes Valley VRs have out of state owners
140 – 150 of the 492 vacation rentals “Business Names” include the terms LLC, LP, Inc,
Enterprise, Ltd, Partnership, Holding, etc.
‐ 38 owners own multiple vacations for a total of 98 properties
48
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
Estes Park Area Housing Needs Study, Rees Consulting Inc, January 22, 2016
“Loss of Units – At the same time rental demand was increasing from the factors mentioned
above, the size of the rental inventory declined. Long‐term rentals occupied by the workforce
have been sold to new owners as the market recovered or converted into short‐term vacation
home rentals, both of which displaced renters and permanently reduced the supply of rental
housing.”, Pg. 67
“Rental homes being sold, flood damage and rentals being converted to short‐term rentals have
affected the most renters – about 200 each.”, Pg. 83
Estes Valley vacation rental growth – per Town license/permit applications,
11/01/16
1 00
9
001 2233
14 10 8
68
13 16
41 41
95
171
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
No. of Vacation RentalsHomes converted to Vacation Rentals each year
Town Board approves "Use
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
No. of Vacation RentalsLicensed VR growth (from 2016 license/permit info)
Town Board approves "Use by
49
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
Size of vacation rentals & zones where they are located
37
124
192
79
27
2 1 2 1
0
50
100
150
200
250
123456789No. of VRsNo. of Bedrooms
Size of Vacation Rentals (no. of bedrooms)
VRs
36 41
25
6
114 115
14
7 6
31
11
92
7 10
3 2
29
21
5 3 1
7 4
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
AA‐1CDCO E E‐1RR‐1R‐2RERE‐1RMNo. of VRsZoning District
Vacation Rentals per Zoning District
VRs
4+ Bdrms33 VRs have an unknow number of
50
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
VR Owners place of residence
Total licensed VRs in all zones 498 % of 498
VRs in A and C zones 108 22%
VRs in residential zones 390 78%
VRs in residential RM zones 92 18%
VRs in residential w/o RM zones 298 60%
Total licensed VRs in all zones 498 % of 498
Total licensed 4+ bedroom VRs 112 22%
4+ bedroom VRs in A and C zones 22 4%
4+ bedroom VRs in residential zones 90 18%
4+ bedroom VRs in RM zones 20 4%
4+ bedroom VRs in res w/o RM 70 14%
1 2 3
13
160
109
1 7 10
1
12
1
23
117 6 9
1 2 1
44
224 9 2 1
55
1115
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
AL AZ CO CT IA IL KS MD MN MS ND NV OH OR TX WA WYNo. of VRsOwner's state of residence
Estes Valley VR ownership
51
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
Host Compliance (an iCompass subsidiary) capability
The Town of Estes Park will enter into an agreement with Host Compliance to
assist with enforcement for non‐compliant vacation rentals. Through their
software abilities, they will identify unlicensed or unpermitted vacation rentals in
the Estes Valley. Larimer County has agreed to share the cost of Host Compliance
services. The Town will contract with Host Compliance, and Larimer County will
contribute their share (50%) directly to the Town. The agreement with Host
Compliance will commence on January 1, 2017.
The scope of services that Host Compliance will provide include:
Address Identification – Monthly report
•Up‐to‐date list of jurisdiction’s active vacation rental listings
•Screenshots of all active listings (captured weekly)
•Address and contact information for all listings
Trend Monitoring – Monthly report
Compliance Monitoring – Monthly report
•Ongoing monitoring for zoning and permit compliance
•Pro‐active outreach to unpermitted listings (using Town form letters)
•Current list of illegal listings (unpermitted)
•Create case history for non‐compliant listings
Rental Activity and Tax Collection Support
•Monitoring of calendar and review activity through websites
•Weekly screenshots of reviews and calendars for active listings
•Quarterly pro‐active outreach to property owners regarding their tax
remittance obligations using Town form letters
•Quarterly report on tax compliance
•Current list of rentals suspected of under‐reporting taxes including
documentation
•Custom reports to support tax audits and other investigations
7/24 Rental Hotline
•Staffed telephone and email hotline for neighbors to report non‐
emergency problems
•Full documentation for all reported incidents
•Digital recording and written transcripts of all calls
• Ability for neighbors to include photos, videos and sound recordings
with complaints
•Immediate outreach to owners/managers of problem properties
•Weekly reports including
Number and types of reported incidents
List of properties where incidents have been reported
52
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
Our Detailed Recommendations:
1)We very much respect the work that the Vacation Rental Taskforce
completed this summer and support the following Vacation Rental
Taskforce recommendations and their incorporation into appropriate
code for all vacation rentals (8 and below and 9+).
a.Process for establishing occupancy count: Vacation rental
occupancy should be counted as 2 occupants per bedroom + 2
additional occupants.
b.Minimum age limit for counting an Individual as an Occupant:
All occupants, regardless of age, shall be counted. This is due to
health, safety, and welfare concerns in case of fires, etc.
c.Traffic limitations in areas adjacent to VR: Traffic limitations in
areas adjacent to Vacation Rentals are to be the same as the existing
requirements for the area.
d.Speed limits in areas adjacent to VR: Speed limits in areas
adjacent to Vacation Rentals are to be the same as the existing
requirements for the area.
e.Inspections to be conducted by local government, etc.: All
normal Land Use, Building, Health, Fire, etc. to be utilized. Annual
inspections are not required.
f.Parking: Utilize the current language in the Estes Valley Land
Development Code: 5.2.B.2.e.6 Limit on Number of Parked or Stored
Vehicles, Not Including Recreational Equipment and Recreational
Vehicles, on a Lot.
g.Renter Notification Requirements for Posting: Use Taskforce
recommended format.
h.Noise Requirements: Current Town or County Noise Ordinance,
depending on location in or out of Town, would apply. No additional
requirements limiting use or time of use, for outside activities, would
be required.
i.Proof of Insurance: No Proof of Insurance will be required.
Insurance is the responsibility of the VR owner.
j.Liability: Rental agreements to protect liability of neighbors:
No requirement for liability signoff by renters, for protection of
adjacent property owners. The VR is subject to the same criteria as
any other residential home is, within the area. (Note: the VR owner
will include the statement that renters are not to trespass onto
adjacent properties. This will be in the list of posted items.)
53
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
k.Local Contact requirements for manager/owner: The permit
shall designate a local resident or property manager of the Estes
Valley who can be contacted by phone and is available twenty‐four
(24) hours per day, regarding any violation of the provisions of this
Section. The local resident or property manager shall respond to
complaints within thirty (30) minutes.
i.We further recommend the use of Host Compliance to
document each interaction of the property manager, guest
and neighbors. This is critical to create a clear picture of the
vacation rental business compliance in the Estes Valley.
l.Approval Process for 9/above Vacation Rentals: Initially the
current Special Review process will be used to approve 9+ Vacation
Rentals. Staff needs to develop a more streamlined process to
manage the potential quantity of Vacation Rental Special Reviews.
2)Vacation rental units in accommodation zones A, A1, CD and CO
should not be capped. Occupancy should be limited to 2/bedroom + 2.
All vacation rentals should be required to obtain a license/permit. With
that licensing/permitting process, an inspection shall occur to verify
bedroom count and code compliance for guest safety upon the initial
application. All vacation rentals in this category shall comply with Town or
Larimer County statues and the Estes Valley Development Code. Dark Sky
compliance should be mandatory for all licensed/permitted VR operations.
Vacation rentals of more than 8 may be required to comply with the IBC
code rather than the IRC code based upon Chief Building Officer(CBO)
decisions. Should the CBO decide that 9+ vacation rentals are required to
comply with the IBC, we would suggest them being given a 24‐month
period to comply with the costs of the IBC code upgrades.
54
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
3)Vacation rental units in all residential zones should be limited to
2/bedroom plus 2 with a maximum overnight occupancy of 8.
VR properties with a maximum occupancy of 8 or less and who have
acquired a license/permit under the cap may operate at their current
location in residential zones. With that licensing/permitting process, an
inspection shall occur to verify bedroom count and code compliance for
guest safety upon the initial application. All vacation rentals in this
category shall comply with Town or Larimer County statues and the Estes
Valley Development Code. Dark Sky compliance should be mandatory for
all licensed/permitted operations.
All 9+ VR properties who have applied for a Town of Estes Park Business
License or Larimer County Operating Permit by March 31, 2017 shall submit
the required documentation and inspection results required by a
streamlined special review process heard by the Estes Valley Planning
Commission.
Because of their size, these 9+ vacation rentals may fall under the regulation
of the International Building Code (IBC). That issue, however, is again not
within our purview and is an issue dealt with by the Chief Building Official
(CBO). We do recommend that should these units fall under the IBC that
they be given 24 months to fully comply as a means to mitigate the inherent
cost of the IBC code requirements.
No new 9+ vacation rentals should be permitted in any of the
residential zones effective April 1, 2017.
4)An annual cap on the total number of vacation rental
licenses/permits in Estes Valley residential zoning districts should be set
to a hard number (588) for code purposes on December 15, 2016 but be
reevaluated and set post April 1, 2017 based on the total of
licenses/permits applied for as of March 31, 2017, plus 10%. The cap
number should be reviewed annually for its impact on the impact on
neighborhood quality and availability of affordable/workforce housing in
residential zones.
a.The Planning Commission would annually review available data and
make recommendations to the Town of Estes Park Trustees and the
Larimer County Commissioners on the cap’s status.
55
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
5)Vacation rental licenses/permits should be issued on an annual basis,
reviewed/renewed annually and re‐inspected on a recurring three‐
year cycle.
a.Vacation rental licenses/permits are issued to the home owner for
the period of one year.
b.Licenses/permits may be revoked for substantiated violations of
licensing/permitting requirements per criteria established in a
Town/County violation policy document.
i.License/permit enforcement will be handled per Town and
County statutory processes.
c.Licenses/permits in residential zones revoked for more than 12
months become invalid and reissuance is only available if there are
open licenses/permits under the cap and all previous violations have
been corrected.
d.Licenses/permits not renewed by the property owner become invalid
after 12 months and are forfeited. Reissuance of forfeited
licenses/permits in residential zones is only available if there are
open licenses/permits under the cap.
e.Property inspections shall be conducted by code compliance
inspectors at the time of ALL initial license/permit applications to
ensure public safety and every three years thereafter to ensure
continued compliance.
i.Inspections shall be staggered with the first re‐inspection
occurring in 2020 for even numbered addresses and 2021 for
odd numbered addresses.
ii.The inspections shall be the same VR Safety inspections as
required for 9+ Special Review plus Dark Sky compliance per
EVDC 7.9D.
f.License/permit number must be clearly listed on all marketing
literature and website listings.
g.9+ Special Review shall be streamlined into a check‐off list that
ensures that property owners clearly know what is expected of them
to comply with the review decision matrix and staff and Planning
Commissioners know how to adjudicate the application.
i.Neighbor Notification – Prior to submission for Special
Review, the owner or local contact of the 9+ VR property shall
be responsible for mailing a written notice.
1.Notice shall be mailed with certificate of mailing or
other method as approved by staff, to the owners of
56
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
properties within one hundred (100) feet of the subject
property.
2.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 with two (2) weeks of the change.
3.Notices shall indicate that the residence is applying for
a Special Review application for a VR license/permit.
ii.VR Safety (by inspection report)
1.Are all bedrooms listed in the application legal?
2.Is emergency egress code compliant – window size,
basement, 1st floor and 2nd floor egress
3.Smoke detectors present and operational
4.CO detectors present and operational
5.Stairs and stair rails meet code
6.Parking per code
7.Clearly marked address signage visible for emergency
responders
8.Community Development recommended notification
list present in rental
iii.VR Location (current plat/survey/lot plan submitted for
review)
1.Lot size/Setbacks
a.Meet taskforce 1 acre requirement
b.Less than taskforce requirement accessed with
respect to direct neighbor impact associated
with structure placement and setbacks from
neighboring properties.
i.Structure placement impact with respect
to neighbor properties: hot tub, fire pit,
porch, lighting, parking.
c.Previous history of validated neighborhood
complaints/violations
2. Dark Sky compliant per EVDC 7.9D (a major neighbor
complaint, minimal expense to comply, comply prior
to license/permit issuance, verified by inspection)
57
ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION |FINAL 4.0 NOVEMBER 29, 2016
Appendix:
Appendix A: CAST Report
o https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByOraRNR__Stc1o5bDYzZmNfOUk
/view
Appendix B: Estes Park Area Housing Needs Study
o https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Fin
al%202016%20HNA%20Report.pdf
Appendix C: Vacation Rental Task Force Recommendations
o https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByOraRNR__StRWNVSWwtemh5V
1U/view
58
Vacation Rentals Are A Business
•Much has been said and written about property rights as associated with
Vacation Rentals (VRs)
•Both boards allowed 8 and below VRs as a right in 2010 within residential
zones
•Because of lassie faire enforcement since 2010 a significant number of
non-compliant 9+ VRs have been established within the residential zones
•ALL of these VRs are businesses operating within residential zones and may
be regulated like any other business operating within a residential zone.
•Fair and unbiased regulation is our goal with compliance as our metric
59
Compliance
•In researching other jurisdictions implementing VR restrictions, compliance
becomes the biggest issue
•In the Estes Valley if we do not have a high compliance rate all of our
efforts are for not
•Compliance means:
•Licensed/permitted
•Meet basic safety codes
•Paying taxes to the appropriate agencies
•Goal is 95+% compliance by December 31, 2017
•Our final recommendations have been structured to focus on compliance
60
Zone Based Proposal
•Vacation Rentals divided between two main districts
•Accommodations/Commercial: A, A1, CD and CO
•Residential: R, E, E1, RE, RE1 and RM
•Accommodations/Commercial zones are where zoning expects guest
accommodations (VRs are accommodation business properties)
•No restrictions on VRs, i.e. no VR cap in A, A1, CO or CD zones
•2/bedroom plus 2 occupancy
•Potential requirement for IBC upgrades or reclassification
•Governmental jurisdiction decision
61
Zone Based Proposal
•Residential zones:
•CAP VR growth in residential zoning districts
•Extend grace period for obtaining license/permit to March 31, 2017, goal = compliance
•Initially create a hard cap number for code purposes effective December 15, 2016 with a Cap
of 588 VR units.
•Based upon our focus on compliance, reassess the cap number post April 1, 2017 with the
following formula:
•The CAP would be set as a percentage of residential VR units to total residential units in residential
zones and set at 12.5%
•(allowed VR licensed/permitted units in residential zones within the EVDC boundary)/(total #
of residential units in residential zones within the EVDC boundary)=0.125
•The CAP number would be annually adjusted based upon residential unit growth on March 31st.
•2/bedroom plus 2 occupancy max 8
•9+ VRs applying for license/permit by March 31, 2017 will apply via a special review
process with crisp evaluation criteria
•NO New 9+ VR’s in residential zones effective April 1, 2017
62
Special Review vs Standards
•A lot of conversation about how to evaluate 9+ VR applications
•The Draft 2.0 position to use standards rather than a Special Review became
unworkable and was not a fair and equitable solution for all 9+ owners
•Choice is to move back to a highly structured special review process that is
applied fairly across all 9+ VR applications
•EVPC would be the evaluating and approving body given Town and County approval
•Appeal to appropriate governing body
•This along with a check list Special Review process should allow for due process for all 9+
applications
•The check list Special Review process is outlined in the EVPC Position Document dated
November 29, 2016
63
Licenses/Permits
•Annual review at time of reapplication
•VR performance against Host Compliance/iCompass data
•Licenses/permits may be revoked for cause
•Licenses/permits are forfeited if not renewed
•New licenses/permits are available up to cap limit
•Three tiered priority application process
•Safety code inspection
•Safety Code inspection at initial application
•Safety code inspection every 3 years to ensure continued compliance
•Even numbered addresses begin in 2020, odd numbered addresses begin in 2021
•Enforcement
•Three levels:
•Property managers are expected to monitor, manage and enforce regulations
•LE enforces illegal acts
•Code officers interact with both property managers and LE to bring offenders into compliance
•Code Compliance Enforcement
•Host Compliance/iCompass data driven
•Town of Estes Park: Municipal Court to District Court
•Larimer County: County Commissioners to District Court
64
Unlicensed VRs
•By March 31, 2017, the Town and County will have given VR owners a
gracious amount of time to comply –become licensed/permitted
•Potentially 200-250 have chosen to remain underground as of today
•Our hope is that they choose to become compliant and apply for their
VR licenses/permits by March 31,2017
•Once the cap has been reached they will have to wait until there are
available licenses/permits
•If they choose to continue to operate illegally Host
Compliance/iCompass will identify them and enforcement will
proceed with court action
65
The Threat of VRs Going Underground
•Their appears to be an active lobby for the VR community that states that if we create fair and reasonable
code restrictions on VRs or if IBC code becomes a prerequisite for 9+ VRs that:
•VRs will simply go underground
•Host Compliance will “definitely” go away after a year
•We will destroy a critical part of the Estes Valley lodging
•These threats appear to be intended to influence the Trustees in their decision process
•There is NO DATA to support these assertions!
•There are NO jurisdictions where fair regulation has forced VRs to go underground
•Those jurisdictions appear to have good compliance and a vibrant VR business environment
•We have modeled our regulations along these community baselines
•The argument that Host Compliance will fail in its ability to identify Estes Valley VR properties is baseless
•Host Compliance is deployed today in multiple communities for just this purpose
•The argument that a 24x7x365 data logged complaint line will not significantly enhance enforcement is baseless
•Host Compliance is again deployed today in multiple communities for just this purpose
•Both the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County are committed to enforcement which has been a key issue for both VR owners and
residents all along and data logged complaints are critical for that enforcement to occur
•While the possibility of IBC compliance has significant costs to a 9+ VR owner, our recommendations are to allow them 24
months to fully comply should IBC requirements apply which is a separate issue
•The IBC financial impact is further reduced by the high weekly rental income from the units and the state and federal tax write -offs for
business property improvements
66
Estes Valley Development Code
Implementing Vacation Rental Task Force and Staff Recommendations (for nine or more occupants)
November 15, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
Estes Valley Development Code
Draft Text Amendment
November 15, 2016 – Version TF (Task Force)
Text to remain is in black.
Text revised after November 1, 2016 Planning Commission Study Session
§5.1 SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS
B. Vacation Home.
1.General Applicable Standards. All vacation homes shall be subject to the following
(see §5.1.B.3 for additional regulations):
a.Annual Operating Permit.
(1) Permit Required. All vacation homes shall obtain an operating permit on an
annual basis. If the property is located within Town limits, the business
license shall be considered the operating permit. If the property is within the
unincorporated Estes Valley, an operating permit shall be obtained from the
Town of Estes Park Town Clerk's Office.
(2) Local Contact Representative. The permit shall designate a local resident or
local property manager in the Estes Valley who can be contacted by
telephone and is available twenty-four (24) hours per day, with regard to any
violation of the provisions of this Section. The local resident or property
manager representative shall have the capability to respond to complaints on
site within thirty (30) minutes. The person set forth on the application shall be
the representative of the owner for all purposes with regard to the operation
of the vacation home. The property owner and the designated local
representative shall sign the license or permit application acknowledging all
vacation home regulations.
(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 Entity may deny or withhold the
renewal of an Annual Operating Permit until an alleged violation related to
such property, use or development is corrected, in accordance with §12.4.A.1.
The relevant Decision-Making Entity may revoke the Annual Operating Permit
at any time in accordance with §12.4.A.2. Appeals to this section shall be made
in accordance with the appeals process in the Estes Valley Development
Code. Nothing described herein shall limit the Town or County, within their
respective jurisdictions, from exercising other remedies and enforcement
powers pursuant to Chapter 12 of this Code.
b.Estes Park Municipal Code. Properties located within the Town of Estes Park
shall comply with all the conditions and requirements set forth in the Town of Estes
Park Municipal Code, Chapter 5.20.
c.Residential Character. Vacation homes in residential zone districts 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.
67
Estes Valley Development Code
Implementing Vacation Rental Task Force and Staff Recommendations (for nine or more occupants)
November 15, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
(2) Kitchen facilities shall be limited to be consistent with single-family residential
use. No kitchen facilities or cooking shall be allowed in the guest rooms.
(3) No changes in the exterior appearance shall be allowed to accommodate each
vacation home.
d.Postings.
(1) Vacation homes shall have a clearly legible notice posted on-site, containing
at a minimum the following:
(a) The physical address of the vacation home and business license/operating
permit number;
(b) Name and telephone number of the local representative and property
owner;
(c) Maximum number of occupants allowed overnight;
(d) Maximum number of vehicles allowed parked outside; in designated off
street parking areas;
(e) Refuse disposal instructions;
(f) Location of fire extinguishers;
(g) Outdoor fire regulations;
(h) Domestic animal regulations
(2) Property Line Boundaries; Property owner or local representative shall inform
all occupants of property boundaries;
(3) Property owner or local representative shall include in all print or online
advertising the license or permit number.
(4) Advertising shall accurately represent the permitted use of the property.
Inaccurate or false advertising shall be a violation.
(5) Neighbor Notification. Upon issuance of initial Annual Operating Permit, the
owner or local contact shall be responsible for mailing a written notice.
(a) Notice shall be mailed, with certificate of mailing or other method as
approved by staff, to the owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet
of the subject property.
(b) Notices shall provide a name and telephone number of the local contact
representative and property owner. Any change in the local representative
or property owner shall be furnished to the Community Development
Director and owners of properties within one hundred (100) feet of the
subject property within two (2) weeks of the change.
(c) Mailing certificates shall be provided to the Community Development
Director upon issuance of initial Annual Operating Permit.
(d) Vacation homes legally existing as of the effective date of this code shall be
required to send written notice pursuant to §5.1.B.1.d.(4).
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
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.
68
Estes Valley Development Code
Implementing Vacation Rental Task Force and Staff Recommendations (for nine or more occupants)
November 15, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
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.Accessory Dwelling Units. An accessory dwelling shall not be occupied by any
individual while the vacation home is in use.
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 shall be permitted per residential dwelling unit.
2.All Vacation homes shall also be subject to the following:
a.Occupancy.
(1) Maximum Occupancy. Maximum allowable occupancy shall be further limited
by a maximum of two (2) individuals per bedroom plus two (2) individuals. For
purposes of this section, bedroom is defined as a sleeping space pursuant to
the currently adopted and applicable International Building Codes.
(2) All occupants, regardless of age or status, shall be counted in the vacation
rental occupancy count.
(3) Vacation homes shall not be used for events, weddings or other gatherings not
consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood.
(4) Owners of the vacation home shall not be permitted to occupy the vacation
home while a renter is present.
b.Lot requirements for vacation homes with nine (9) or more occupants.
(1) Minimum lot size of one (1) acre.
(2) Minimum setback of twenty-five feet from all property lines, or the zoning
district setbacks, whichever is greater.
c.Special review application and approval shall be required for all vacation homes with
nine (9) or more occupants.
d.Legal non-conforming vacation homes with nine (9) or more occupants will not be
(TO BE REVISED AND MOVED TO A NEW SECTION)
1.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.
69
Estes Valley Development Code
Implementing Vacation Rental Task Force and Staff Recommendations (for nine or more occupants)
November 15, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
subject to the minimum lot size, minimum setbacks, or special review provided the
following conditions are met.
(1) Must have permit for eight (8) occupants issued prior to July 1, 2016
(2) Must have existing capacity for nine (9) or more occupants.
(3) Must submit application within thirty (30) days of adoption effective date of
this amendment.
e.Vacation rentals shall be required to meet applicable Building, Health and Fire codes.
f.Home Occupations. Home occupations shall not be operated on the site of a vacation
home, nor shall vacation homes offer ancillary services to guests.
Table 4-1: Permitted Uses: Residential Zoning Districts.
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.
70
Estes Valley Development Code
Implementing Vacation Rental Task Force and Staff Recommendations (for nine or more occupants)
November 15, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting
§ 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
RequirementsAA-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.
§ 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 representative, or the applicant for any
relevant permit. Notice shall be given in person, or by certified U.S. Mail, or by posting notice
on the premises. The notice shall specify the Code provisions allegedly in violation, and unless
a shorter time frame is allowed by this Chapter shall state that the individual has a period of
fifteen (15) days from the date of the receipt of the notice in which to correct the alleged
violations before further enforcement action shall be taken. The notice shall also state any
appeal and/or variance procedures available pursuant to this Code.
The Board of Trustees or Board of County Commissioners, as applicable, may grant an
extension of the time to cure an alleged violation, up to a total of ninety (90) days, if the Board
finds that due to the nature of the alleged violation, it reasonably appears that it cannot be
corrected within fifteen (15) days.
71
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Building Dept, Planning Dept, Code Compliance, & Rural Lands
DIRECTOR’S OFFICE
Post Office Box 1190
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190
(970) 305-1544
FAX (970) 498-7711
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Town of Estes Park Trustees 7 December 2016
FROM: COL Robert “Terry” Gilbert (ret.), AICP
Director
SUBJECT: Vacation Rental Task Force Recommendations on Vacation Rentals for 9 or More Occupants
15 December 2016 Joint Public Hearing
On 9 November 2015, the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners met in a joint public
hearing to act upon proposed Code amendments, concerning vacation rentals. The meeting resulted in no
action being taken, due to concerns of the County Commission over issues raised by the public. Additionally the
County Commissioners tasked County staff to hold public meetings on the issues raised at the 9 November
meeting.
On Saturday, 12 December 2015, County staff had the first public input meeting. The meeting was a facilitated
meeting, with the participants broken up into a dozen groups, each group having individuals for vacation rentals and
individuals against vacation rentals. Each group had a facilitator. There were over 100 citizens in attendance.
On Monday 25 January 2016, the County Commissioners held a public meeting in the Town of Estes Park, to obtain
citizen input on vacation rentals.
On 2 February 2016 Joint Work Session between the Board of County Commissioners, Town Trustees, and the Estes
Valley Planning Commission, I was asked to develop the Scope of Work and Timeline for a Vacation Rental Task
Force. The Task Force was charged with developing recommendations, concerning vacation rentals that will
accommodate 9 or more individuals. The Task Force was not charged with making recommendations on the
Enforcement process, because the enforcement processes were going to be reviewed by the Town staff separately.
Additionally, the Task Force was not charged with recommending whether 9/above vacation rentals, as a use,
should be allowed or not.
Timeline
Both Boards set mid-November 2016 as the approximate time for the final public hearing to decide on possible
Development Code amendments, for vacation rentals, which accommodated 9 or more occupants. The Scope of Work
and Timeline were developed with the mid-November date as a completion date. The Board of County Commissioners
and the Town Trustees approved the Scope of Work & Timeline on 16 February and 23 February, respectively, with
two changes:
1. Add a task force member from the Association of Responsible Development (ARD) and
2. Have a task force member selected by the property managers.
The Task Force was made up of 15 members, not counting myself. The membership is made up of two primary
categories:
1. Individuals (8 members) approved by the Town Trustees and Board of County Commissioners:
a.3 home owners within the town limits, living near or close to a vacation rental;
b. 3 home owners within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area, living near or close to a
vacation rental;
72
7 December 2016 RTG Memo for 15 December 2016 Joint PH – Vacation Rental (9/above occupants)
c.1 vacation rental owner, with a vacation rental in the town limits;
d. 1 vacation rental owner, with a vacation rental within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning
Area.
2. Organizations (7). Each organization was to select a representative to be on the Task Force.
On 12 April 2016, both the Town Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners met, via a tele-conference, to
select the 8 members of group 1, above.
The first meeting of the Task Force was held on 27 April 2016. The meetings were held every other Wednesday from
27 April through 3 August 2016, for a total of 8 meetings.
Between 27 April and 3 August both the Board of Trustees and the Board of County Commissioners were updated on
the process of the Task Force in June and July.
On 3 August 2016, the Task Force completed their assignment to recommend potential changes to the Estes Valley
Land Development Code, should the Board of Trustees and the County Commissioners decide to allow Vacation
Rentals for 9/above occupants.
On 30 August 2016, a work session between the Board of Trustees, Board of County Commissioners, and the Estes
Valley Planning Commission was held. Estes Park Community Development staff was requested to develop code
language for the Planning Commission and governing bodies to review individually. The draft Code language was to
be reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission in November of 2016.
On 29 November 2016, the Planning Commission held a final public hearing on the vacation rentals for both those
8/under occupants and 9/above occupants. The Planning Commission made final recommendations, which the Estes
Park Community Development Director has forwarded to both the Board of Trustees and the Board of County
Commissioners, for the 15 December 2016 joint public hearing. 12 of the 15 recommendations, of the Vacation Rental
Task Force are being recommended by the Planning Commission. The 12 recommendations being recommended by
the Planning Commission are reinforcement of existing regulations or minor changes to existing regulations.
However, the 3 remaining Task Force recommendations were the most critical of the 15 recommendations.
Without any one of the 3 critical recommendations being accepted, the overall Task Force recommendation will
no longer be valid.
Key Issues
1. The two greatest concerns, other than whether vacation rentals should be allowed, came out in the two public
meetings (12 December 2015 and 25 January 2016) and throughout the Task Force discussions, were:
a.Lack of trust in the local government.
b.Lack of enforcement of current Codes and whether any Code changes would be enforced.
2. The recommendations from the Task Force were developed and recommended after intensive discussion and
compromises to produce recommendations, which were acceptable to both sides of the issue. Therefore, there
are specific recommendations, where significant negotiation occurred and are key to the overall Task Force
recommendations. Should any of the following specific recommendations be eliminated, the overall
recommendations of the Task Force would no longer be valid. The specific recommendations in this category
are:
a. Grandfathering of 9/above Vacation Rentals, with conditions noted in recommendation.
b.Location Requirement Task, allowing 9/above Vacation Rentals in the same zoning districts as
8/below Vacation rentals, with conditions noted in recommendation (which include minimum lots
size and setbacks).
c.Approval Process for 9/above vacation rentals (Special Review approval by Trustees/County
Commissioners.
73
7 December 2016 RTG Memo for 15 December 2016 Joint PH – Vacation Rental (9/above occupants)
Recommendations:
After years of complaints, from both sides of the issues and no satisfactory solutions developed, the Task Force
was established to provide both the Town Trustees and the County Commissioners a set of recommendations,
which both sides of the issues agree on. Without approving the following three recommendations, the entire
effort of the Task Force is for not and invalidates the entire effort of the Task Force.
The following are the key recommendations, listed in “Key Issues, 2. a – c” above:
Task: Grandfathering of 9/above Vacation Rentals (Date Recommendation was made: 20 July 2016)
Vote: Total: 10 - 0 Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Not
Present
Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
Not
Present
Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Not
Present
Jo Anne Ollerenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
Recommendation:
1.Effective 01 July 2016, Grandfather existing 9/above, or capacity for 9/above, Vacation Rentals, only for VRs
that are currently permitted as 8/below and have existing capacity for 9/above.
2.Within 30 days of the final adoption of 9/above VR regulations, all potential grandfathered 9/above VRs are
to submit for license/permit. (verification of the use must be provided)
3.Grandfather status for 9/above VR:
a.Location on a lot of less than one (1) acre would be grandfathered
b.Existing setback of less than 25 feet would be grandfathered
c.Use as a grandfathered 9/above vacation rental is dependent on the number of bedrooms (2
occupants per bedroom + 2 additional occupants)
d.Parking, Building, Health, Fire, etc. are not Grandfathered.
Note: As of 01 July 2016, there were a total of 97 vacation rentals, which would potentially be considered under the
Grandfather recommendation:
32 vacation rentals within the Town limits
65 vacation rentals within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area
74
7 December 2016 RTG Memo for 15 December 2016 Joint PH – Vacation Rental (9/above occupants)
Task: Location Requirements (Date Recommendation was made: 20 July 2016)
Vote: Total: 10 - 0 Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
Not
Present
Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
Not
Present
Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
X Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
X Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
Bernie Holien (resigned 19 July) Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Not
Present
Jo Anne Ollerenshaw Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
Recommendation:
1.Allowed in the same zoning districts as the 8/below are allowed
2.Minimum of 1 acre lot (smaller lots could be combined, utilizing the subdivision regulations, to create a 1
acre or larger lot)
3.Minimum of 25’ setbacks for all a yards or the zoning district setbacks, whichever is greater
75
7 December 2016 RTG Memo for 15 December 2016 Joint PH – Vacation Rental (9/above occupants)
Task: Approval Process for 9/above Vacation Rentals (Current Special Review Process)
(Date Recommendation was made: 3 Aug 2016)
Vote: Total: 10 - 0 Non-HO: HO:
Yes No Name of VR Representative Representing
X Art Blume Association of Responsible Development (ARD)
X Jane Livingston Estes Area Lodging Association
X Judy Anderson Estes Park Board of Realtors
X Bill van Horn Estes Park Economic Development Corp (EDC)
X Ed Peterson Estes Park Vacation Rentals Owners Association
X Rainer Schelp Property Management Representative
Not
Present
Lindsey Lamson Visit Estes Park
X Fred R Mares Home Owner (in Town)
Not
Present
Millicent Cozzie Home Owner (in Town)
X Richard (Dick) Spielman Home Owner (in Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Vacant Home Owner (out of Town)
Jo Anne Ollerenshaw (resigned on 3
Aug 2016)
Home Owner (out of Town)
X Mick Scarpella Vacation Rental Owner (in Town)
X Linda Moak Vacation Rental Owner (out of Town)
Recommendation:
1.Initially utilize the current Special Review process.
2.Staff needs to develop a more streamlined (shorter) process, which results in an approval by the Board of
Trustees, for applications within the Town and approval by the Board of County Commissioners for
applications within the unincorporated area of the Estes Valley Planning Area.
There was a lengthy discussion, on the approval process. All members agreed the Board of Trustees or the Board of
County Commissioners (depending on whether within the Town limits or in the unincorporated area) should be the
final approval authority through a Special Review process. There was discussion about administrative approvals,
however the Task Force “did not have confidence in the town board or staff, based on past experience with the
Town Board’s actions”.
The members of the Task Force, who own and live in their homes, strongly oppose any change to the current Special
Review process, which would allow for a staff approval of such an application. The Task Force firmly believe “there is
need for a public hearing to allow the elected officials to hear, first hand, the pros and cons of such a change,
contemplate the impact to neighbors, and to minimize any possible staff misinterpretation of the code”.
The Task Force members, who represent vacation rentals, agree the Special Review process should be utilized, with a
Board of Trustees’ or Board of County Commissioners’ final approval. However, they feel the current Special Review
process is too cumbersome and lengthy a process.
76
RT Gilbert 12 Dec 2016 (edition 2) Estes Valley Planning Area Code Amendment differences between Task Force and Estes Valley Planning Commission Of the 15 Task Force Recommendations; six recommendations did not require an amendment to the Development Code, five recommendations requiring modifications to the Development Code are also recommended by the Planning Commission, and an additional four are not recommended by the Planning Commission. The five recommended by both the Task Force and Planning Commission are: (1) Occupancy Count (2) Parking (3) Renter Notification Posting (4) No age minimum for Occupancy Count (5) Local Contact Requirements. The following 4 Task Force Recommendations were not recommended by the Planning Commission. The Chart shows the Task Force Recommendation and the Planning Commission’s counter recommendation. Task Force Recommended Code ChangePC Recommended Code Change Inspection Process: 1.No Code amendment required2.All normal Land Use, Building, Health, Fire, etc. are to beutilized.Page 2 (Section B.1.a.(8‐11) Inspection Process: 1.Initial inspection prior to final authorization.2.Once every third year following initial inspection.Page 3 (Section B.2.b.) Page 4 (Table 4‐1 & 4‐4) Location Requirements: 1.Allow 9/above in the same districts as 8/below VRs2.Minimum of 1 acre lot size3.Minimum of 25’ setbacksPage 6 (Section B.3.c & d) Location Requirements: 1.Through June 1, 2017, Large Vacation Homes (9‐and‐aboveoccupancy) may apply for an approval to the PC, in residential districts. 2.“No Large Vacation Home Review approval shall be granted for a9‐and‐over vacation home for which application is submitted to the Department after June 1, 2017.” Page 3 (Section B.2.c.) Approval Process: 1.Utilize existing Special Review, which has the final approval bythe Trustees/County Commissioners. 2.A more streamlined process needs to be developed, which stillhas the Trustees/County Commissioners as the final approval. Page 6 (Section B.3.b) Approval Process: 1.The Planning Commission shall have the final approval for LargeVacation Homes (9/above occupancy). Page 3‐4 (Section B.2.d.) Grandfathering of 9/above Vacation Rentals: Allows for existing approved 8/below VRs to obtain administrative approval (no Special Review approval required) for 9/above VRs, that are less than 1 acre and have setbacks of less than 25 feet provided: 1.Applies to existing 8/below VRs, having a license/permit as of 1July 2016. Page 6 (Section B.3.c) Transitional Period: 1.Through June 1, 2017, Large Vacation Homes (9‐and‐aboveoccupancy) may apply for an approval to the PC, in residential districts. 77
Ordinance No. 29-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
REGARDING VACATION HOMES
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2016, the Estes Valley Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on the proposed text amendment to the Estes Valley
Development Code, Section 5.1.B (Vacation Homes) and related sections, and found that
the text amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code
Amendments, Standards for Review; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2016, the Estes Valley Planning Commission voted
to recommended approval of the text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park finds the text
amendment complies with Estes Valley Development Code §3.3.D Code Amendments,
Standards for Review and determined that it is in the best interest of the Town that the
amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code, Section 5.1.B (Vacation Homes)
and related sections, as set forth on Exhibit “A”; be approved; and
WHEREAS, said amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code are set forth
on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
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: Immediate passage of this Ordinance is necessary for the
preservation of health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town in order to provide
for appropriate registration to begin December 16, 2016, and therefore the Ordinance
shall take effect and be in force immediately after its passage, adoption, and signature of
the Mayor.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO, THIS DAY OF _______, 2016.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
78
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
[REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
79
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE
ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING
VACATION HOMES
WHEREAS:
1. The Estes Park Community Development Department has proposed amendments
to the Estes Valley Development Code pertaining to vacation homes.
2. The Estes Valley Planning Commission, at a public hearing held November 29,
2016, considered the proposed amendments and recommended to the Board of Trustees
of the Town of Estes Park and to the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer
County, Colorado that they be adopted.
3. The Town Board of the Town of Estes Park approved the proposed changes on
December 15, 2016.
4. At a public hearing on December 15, 2016, which hearing had been advertised in
a newspaper of general circulation as required by law, the Board of County
Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado, considered the proposed amendments.
5. This is a proposal to amend the Estes Valley Development Code vacation home
regulations to regulate vacation homes according to occupancy categories, zoning district
categories, and procedural compliance, according to findings of fact and conclusions of
law as called out in Exhibit A.
8. The review criteria for text amendments to the EVDC have been met as follows:
A. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the area
affected. There is a Valley-wide concern about proliferation of vacation homes in the
Valley. There are also existing and potential vacation-home owner/operators who have
legitimate concerns about the specific regulatory parameters for such operations.
B. 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. The proposed text amendment was reviewed with affected
agencies over the months of October through December 2016 to confirm compliance with
this requirement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the amendments to the Estes Valley Development Code shown on Exhibit “A”
attached hereto shall be and are hereby adopted. Said amendments shall be effective
80
2 | Page
Resolution Adopting Amendments to
EVDC re: Vacation Homes
(December 15, 2016)
immediately upon adoption and signature of the appropriate authorities below, in order to
provide for appropriate registration to begin December 16, 2016.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
By: ___________________________________
Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Dated: ____________
Approved as to form:
_______________
County Attorney
81
82
Association for Responsible Development
P.O. Box 3882, Estes Park, CO 80517
Web; ardestes.org
Vacation Rental Task Force Recommendations
The increasing number of vacation rental units in Town and their resultant negative
effects reported by citizens in residential neighborhoods, prompted Town Trustees and County
Commissioners to request formation of a task force to make recommendations for vacation rental
occupancies of more than eight people. The task force was to assume that both boards wanted to
allow occupancy greater than the 8 allowed today and to come up with a list of recommended
Estes Valley Development Code amendments to deal with the increased occupancy. The task
force was not to consider enforcement since that was a policy issue to be decided by the boards.
This appeared to be a good approach, as Town government was doing little to address
problems resulting from the growing number of seasonal rentals in Estes Park. Reported
problems included but were not limited to: unreasonable noise from renters occurring after hours,
failure of some rental owners to limit the number of total visitors to the current code limit of two
people per bedroom plus two additional people (8 total people), problems related to street
parking from an excessive number of renter vehicles, and a general lack of accountability and
identification of rental home owners and/or property managers to contact when such problems
occurred. The Vacation Rental Task Force was to be composed of equal numbers of
representatives from the community that were concerned about these issues, as well as rental
owners/property managers who have a financial interest in the future growth of vacation rentals.
The Larimer County Community Development Director was selected to run the Task Force with
the intent of coming to a set of agreed upon recommendations for vacation rentals of occupancy
greater than 8 to present to Town government and the County Commissioners. Task Force
meetings began in April and continued through early August of this year.
As the meetings progressed over the summer, it was clear that the issues discussed and
opinions offered were highly contentious. Task Force membership was not entirely balanced,
with seven members chosen from the community versus eight members who owned vacation
rentals or managed such properties. Several community representatives resigned from the Task
Force prior to completion of its work. ARD was allowed one representative on the Task Force.
Despite many differences of opinion, the Task Force did agree on a number of recommendations
including maintaining the current method for establishing the occupancy limit for a short-term
rental property as 2 occupants per bedroom + 2 additional occupants. All individuals, regardless
of age will count toward the occupancy limit. It was further recommended that all normal land
use, building, health, and fire inspections are to be conducted by local government, that parking
restrictions be made consistent with the code requirements for similar residential properties, and
that a minimum lot size of 1 acre and minimum setbacks of 25 feet be required for vacation
rentals with occupancy greater than 8. It was also recommended that each vacation rental be
required to have posted for the renters’ notification a list of local rules, regulations, and
emergency information. A local contact, available 24/7 by phone and able to respond to
complaints within 30 minutes must be identified and on record.
83
An obvious obstacle faced by the Task Force was the lack of information regarding the
number of homes that are rented short-term. An independent consultant reported that there are
currently some 750 homes that are used for vacation rentals in the Estes Valley Planning Region,
of which only an approximate 500 are licensed. A very positive recommendation from the Task
Force is to have the Town subscribe to an on-line service called Host Compliance (iCompass), an
industry leader in short-term rental monitoring and compliance solutions for local governments.
In addition this service takes phone complaints 24/7, contacts listed owners/managers, collects
data on rental unit numbers, and sends letters to owners concerning “non-compliance.” ARD
very much supports this recommendation in order to provide real data in terms monitoring the
number of such rentals in Town and providing a real-time response system for non-compliance.
The primary issue that the Task Force was asked to consider involved the number of
vacation rental homes that have been violating the current code of a maximum of 8 renters per
home. Many complaints have been made about large parties of people renting vacation homes
particularly in residential neighborhoods with smaller lot sizes and setbacks. Such renting only
exacerbates noise and street parking problems encountered by Estes Park residents. Some rental
owners and realtors strongly endorsed a change to the code allowing a larger number of
occupants (nine and above) be incorporated into the development code. This contingent also
recommended that a “grandfather clause” be added to the existing code allowing those rental
homes who have not been following the “eight rule” to continue to do so under any code
changes. The Task Force recommended that as of July 1, 2016, only the 97 currently licensed
vacation rentals (32 rentals within Town limits, and 65 rentals within the unincorporated area of
the Estes Valley Planning Area) of 4 bedrooms or more, be considered for “grandfathering” and
that grandfathering would be considered for lot sizes of less than one acre, or setbacks less than
25 feet. The Task Force agreed that an occupancy greater that 8 should not be a “use-by-right”
and that all new short-term rental applications for occupancy greater than 8 must go through a
Special Review process which could result in approval by the Town Board or the Board of
County Commissioners.
Also, a recommendation to post on site the specific allowable number of people in each
rental home was agreed upon. This could be useful since many renters who are causing issues
during their stay claim that they were not aware of limits on the number of people allowed in the
home. ARD believes that most of these recommendations are drastically needed in order to
provide accountability for the vacation rental business going forward. It goes without saying that
should these needed recommendations be adopted by the Town and County they will only be
useful if they are enforced. It has been the experience of many residents of Estes Park that
enforcement within the Town limits has been poor. Given the trend of an exponential increase in
vacation rentals in our neighborhoods, it is essential that our Town government take a
responsible stance on these recommendations and make an honest effort to enforce them. While
it is financially lucrative for home owners and investors to rent homes and condos on a short
term basis during the high months of tourism, the continuing uncontrolled use of this business
will only denigrate the quality of life in our neighborhoods, the small town atmosphere of Estes
Park, and will continue to transform any available workforce housing into investment properties.
All people who have purchased homes to live here have a vested interest in maintaining the
quality of their neighborhoods. This includes the reasonable expectation of having the residential
experience that they sought when they purchased their homes. The County Commissioners favor
84
placing a total limit cap on the number of short-term rentals in the Valley. ARD thanks our
county commissioners, Tom Donnelly, Steve Johnson, and Lew Gaiter for their interest and
actions in preserving the quality of life for the residents of Estes Park and the Estes Valley.
Those who are affected by vacation rentals in their neighborhoods are encouraged to contact our
Town government and make your concerns known. Also, the Estes Valley Planning
Commission will hold a special study session Nov. 1 at 12 p.m. to discuss vacation rental
regulations, followed by a public hearing to consider draft vacation rental code amendments at
its regular meeting at Town Hall at 1:30 p.m on November 15th.
Association for Responsible Development
85
Concerns about 9+ vacation rentals
2 messages
Theresa Oja <theresaoja@gmail.com> Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 8:52 PM
To: gaiteri@co.larimer.co.us, Steve Johnson <johnsosw@co.larimer.co.us>,
donnelt@co.larimer.co.us, townclerk@estes.org, Karen & Scott Thompson
<kthompson@estes.org>, Patti Freudenburg <pfreudenburg@gmail.com>, Tom Hornbein
<hornbnt@washington.edu>, Kathryn Hornbein <kwren2@gmail.com>
Dear Commissioners, Town Board and Planning Commission,
After attending the last study session I would like to voice several concerns. The fact of
three of the homeowner representatives on the 9+ task force resigning was not
addressed. The task force was already unbalanced before this happened and this left the
homeowners in the county unrepresented. Since that is where a large part of the 9+ rentals
are located this is very concerning.
Nine and above renters are no longer a residential use per code. Why is this going to be
allowed in residential zoning? It is clearly an accommodations use. Why are we going to
allow this increased capacity before we fix the 8 and under problems?
Discussion of "grandfathering" those that are illegally operating with 9 and above is also very
concerning. Since many of those owners have not be following the current regulations, the
neighbors should have the right to voice their concerns. One of the town board members
was correct in stating that the neighbors might have objections. You are darn right they
might object to having a small hotel operating next door.
For those in the county the number of cars they are going to allow is excessive. In our
neighborhood that is 5 cars per house plus whatever they can park in a garage. That's a ton
of traffic in and out on dirt roads that the neighbors will pay to maintain for a commercial
business use. Renters often do not follow the posted speed limit but how will the sheriff
enforce that on these multiple, small private roads?
Larger parties = more noise and traffic. How are you going to enforce the number that they
can rent to? How will you prove how many are actually staying there? Neighbors are being
put in the position of having to monitor these COMMERCIAL businesses. They have to take
time from work, etc. just to try and maintain the residential character of their home and
neighborhood.
Please continue to maintain Estes Park as a premier mountain Community and not allow the
entire valley to become one big accommodations resort. Please cap the total number of
rentals allowed so that residents may continue to live and work in the Estes Valley.
Thanks for your consideration,
Theresa Oja
86
Dear distinguished Commissioners and Trustees,
My wife and I and our five children have visited Estes Park every year since 1995. During this
time we were able to afford week long visits by using vacation rentals to accommodate our
family size and allow us to have some meals at a house. In 2007 we made the decision to
purchase our own house as an investment and opportunity to continue to come to Estes Park.
We purchased a place looking to the future and now four of our five children are married with
four beautiful grandchildren and, we are sure, more to come. We are hardworking, self-
employed folks and the only way we could ever afford to live this dream of ours is by renting our
house when we are not there. Our four bedroom, 4 bath house easily sleeps 12 and with our
size family is needed. We have always paid our taxes, followed all rules of the area and looked
after our neighbors and their peace and quiet. After ten years I feel we have succeeded in being
the best neighbors and proud part time residents of Estes Park.
We understand others may not be living up to those standards and the appropriate
governmental bodies may feel the need to address this situation. As a resident of Fort Myers
Florida for all my life, I have seen these types of situations for our seasonal, vacation based
economy with Ft. Myers Beach and Sanibel Island being in our county. The lessons I can pass
along is, don’t over react. The VRBO portion of your tourism is extremely important. My family
would never had visited as often without the VRBO option and I hear that from most of the
families I rent to. In Southwest Florida we had to learn to embrace our tourists and seasonal
residents or lose them to someplace else, and in the ‘80s that actually happened. Resist the call
from those who have “found paradise”, but now do not want others to enjoy it too.
We would never be able to look to long term rental as a financial solution, as we do use our
home 4-6 weeks throughout the year.
I ask that as you look to account for the VRBOs, you do not place burdensome and costly
restrictions on us. The vast majority of owners would agree there are fair steps to be made to
achieve public safety without over regulation.
Thank you for your time and efforts on all of our behalves.
Sincerely,
Randy Zavada
Renegades Embroidery, Silk Screen and Uniforms
87
From: James Gunlicks <jimgunlicks@gmail.com>
Date: November 17, 2016 at 9:50:37 AM MST
To: cwalker@estes.org
Subject: Short Term Vacation Rentals
Dear Mr. Walker: It is our understanding that the city and county will soon make the final
decisions on short term rental rules. My wife and I have owned and managed our rental house
for over ten years. We are licensed and collect and pay all sales and lodging taxes. We
respect the residential nature of our neighborhood and have a wonderful relationship with our
neighbors. We screen our renters, comply with all town ordinances and there have been no
complaints registered with the city on our property. Our six bedroom home, almost 100 years
old, began as a vacation retreat in the 1920's and operated as a bed and breakfast for
decades. When we bought it we continued to operate it as a bed and breakfast but changed
our business plan to short term rentals when it became obvious that today's BandB guests want
a private bathroom with every bedroom.
Our major concern is over two proposed requirements: Installing a sprinkler system inside the
house and making the house ADA compliant. Neither requirement contributes to keeping the
residential nature of the neighborhood intact and singling out short term rentals for this
requirement would be unfair. Sprinklers and ADA compliance are not required in BandB's or
long term rentals. We are concerned about the safety of our guests and already have fire
alarms, CO2 monitors, fire extinguishers, motion lights and power failure lights. We replaced
the wood burning fireplace with gas logs and replaced the wood shake shingles with a fire
resistant metal roof. We passed our insurance company's inspection with no issues. I'm sure
you understand that the sprinkler system would be expensive to retrofit as would making the
house ADA compliant. I do not know how we could successfully modify our historic home with
all the necessary ramps and other accommodations.
It has been suggested by some that the real purpose behind support for these two requirements
is to discourage short term rentals in the hope that owners will convert them to long term rentals
to help alleviate the work force housing shortage in Estes Park. I certainly don't know if this is
true, but I do believe there are other viable solutions to this issue. We would not be able to
make the numbers work with long term rentals.
We respectfully ask that you not approve these two requirements. At the least, we would ask
that you "grandfather" current short term rental properties. We purchased this house believing
that we would be able to provide a charming, comfortable and affordable vacation home for
families visiting Larimer County while also providing us some additional income. We want to
continue without facing additional expense and ruining the nature of our historic house. Thank
you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jim and Lois Gunlicks.
88
From: Kintzle, Frank
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 4:13 PM
To: 'planning@estes.org' <planning@estes.org>
Subject: vacation rental position paper
We are Frank and Geri Kintzle and we first came to Estes Park with our family nearly forty years
ago and rented cabins for years at the YMCA of the Rockies before we purchased and rented
out our home located at 2040 Windcliff Dr, Estes Park, C0.
We took the time to read your Vacation Rental Position Document and thank you for the time
and effort put forth as we know you have many hours invested.
Many of the houses located on Windcliff have had very good experience in renting without
complaints. We have an additional benefit in that our guest must register at our gatehouse
located at the entrance which provides additional security with eye ball eye ball contact and
opportunity to go over our rules. What is also interesting and validates our Windcliff community
is that every owner of Windcliff Estates has and does live on our Mountain. We are not sure who
is complaining to you or all the reasons for these changes but we have not experience
complaints from any neighbors.
In reference to the “Cast report and Estes Park Housing Needs” we do not understand nor
agree that the number of rental home permits be reduced to 450 and putting a cap of 8 on each
house. We do not have a large home so the cap of 8 does not affect us but some homes are
very large and can easily handle more than 8 which would appear to not only impact the real
estate market for second homes like ours but would impact growth in a negative way in EP via
the labor market. We have hired many contractor’s over the years with many upgrades with
constant care which rental homes in my opinion require more upkeep and upgrades than one
might have with just resident only homes due to the wear and tear and constant improvement
for attraction power.
We have compared EP to other mountain communities like Aspen and Vail and chose EP
because in our opinion Estes is more family focus. Let’s keep EP family focused and find
reasons to have people take their vacations here by offering many different attractive places to
stay.
As absentee owners we have and continue to contribute to the Estate Park community in whole
via library, church, hospital, etc. If constraints on our ability and others to rent it will affect the
community in many different ways.
Thank you for taking the time to read and listen and we hope and pray you make good
decisions for everyone in the community.
Frank and Geri Kintzle
Frank I. Kintzle, CLU, ChFC, CFP, CEBS, MSM
Senior Financial Services Representative
Financial Advisor
Principal Securities Registered Representative
Principal Financial Group
200 Second Avenue SE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
Phone (319) 362-2149 x. 116
Fax (319) 362-8737
Email kintzle.frank@principal.com
Web www.principal.com
89
Cyd Deats
Nov 29 (10
days ago)
to tjirsa, wkoenig, Bob, wnelson, pmartchink, rnorris, cwalker, me, planning, Steve, donnelt, Lew
Estes Park Town Board of Trustees and Planning Commissioners:
As long-time residents of Estes Park, we are extremely disappointed in the Town officials’
apparent lack of concern for Estes Park neighborhoods, residents and community. Throughout
this process it appears to us that the focus has primarily been on the rights of vacation home
owners and operators, with very little regard for the rights of the local inhabitants of our
neighborhoods and residential areas.
A large number of vacation homes in the Estes Valley are owned by individuals and businesses
located along the Colorado Front Range, Texas, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois,
Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, West Virginia, Virginia,
Maryland, New York, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Wyoming and California. Additionally, a number
of these vacation home owners own and operate multiple vacation homes. Vacation homes are
commercial endeavors and are intrusions of commercial businesses into residential
neighborhoods. In addition, the already inordinate number of vacation homes in the Town limits
and the surrounding Estes Valley may be limiting the number of long term rentals available for
people who want to live in, and contribute to, our community on a year ‘round basis. They are
negatively affecting our neighborhoods, our sense of community, our school district enrollment
and the ability of young families to live
in Estes Park.
Operating vacation homes in residential areas truly changes the personality of the neighborhood
with increased automobile traffic, increased noise levels, people coming and going at all hours
of the day and night, never knowing who your “neighbor” is at any given time and altercations
between property owners within neighborhoods…just to name a few of the issues
involved. This is not just speculation on our part…we can see no fewer than seven vacation
homes just by looking out the windows of our home.
We chose to live in a residential area and purchased property in a residential zoning
district. Our property is zoned E-1. We have a significant investment in our land and our home
and do not support more lenient vacation home regulations. We invested in our property to
have some space between our home and our neighbors’ homes, to provide room for the wildlife
to wander, and to enjoy the solitude and beauty of Estes Park, not to have numerous small
hotels in our neighborhood. If we had wanted to be surrounded by hotels and motels we would
have purchased property in a Commercial or Accommodations zoning district where this type of
activity is allowed and expected.
The Accommodations zoning districts were created for just that, accommodations and
lodging. Residential zoning districts are not intended to be locations for commercial lodging
businesses. The Town needs to take action that would stop the encroachment of commercial
business activities into our residential neighborhoods, thereby preserving the neighborhoods of
Estes Park and the right to quiet enjoyment by the residents of Estes Park residential
neighborhoods.
90
We support a cap on the number of vacation homes allowed, as well as retaining and enforcing
the current vacation home regulations. Please do not loosen the regulations and allow for even
greater occupancy and a greater number of vacation homes in Estes Park and the surrounding
Estes Valley. Please retain the limited occupancy criteria (two people per bedroom plus two
with a maximum of eight); enforce the regulations currently in place; honor and uphold the
covenants of our neighborhoods and subdivisions; and keep lodging on properties that are
zoned for accommodations.
Thank you,
Cyd and Steve Deats
Town of Estes Park residents
91
To: Estes Park Town Board of Trustees
Larimer County Board of County Commissioners
Estes Valley Planning Commission
Randy Hunt, Estes Park Community Development Director
From: Faith and Lyle Zimmerman, 1930 Sharon Ct. N. Estes Park, CO 80517
Date: December 9, 2016
RE: Input related to VRBO Vacation Rentals in Estes Park and the Estes Valley
We live at 1930 Sharon Ct. N., a short cul-de-sac with nine single family homes zoned
residential in Carriage Hills. The cul-de-sac has a small circular turn-around with four
driveways. Three years ago one home in the turn-around was bought by an out-of-state
investor and the long-term seven year renter, a single mother and daughter were ousted.
The mother, a long-time service worker at a local restaurant, could not find affordable
housing as a waitress. In addition a second home in the cul-de-sac is now illegally
renting out a basement as an auxiliary dwelling unit which is not allowed in an area
zoned for single family residential. Our small block and neighborhood is changed with
2/9 homes needing significant on-street parking, no contribution to being a neighbor, or
contributions as an Estes Park resident. Carriage Hills is largely populated by families
and seniors and has traditionally offered more affordable housing and especially for first
time home owners and young families. That is quickly changing secondary to vacation
rental investing and auxiliary dwelling units.
Our concerns and recommendations:
1. We support a VRBO cap of the original proposal of 450 licensed units in residential
zoning districts. The proposed cap of 588 is not reasonable given the current
estimate of 750 existing units and will compromise our ability to maintain our
neighborhoods as a good place to live, raise children, and the quality of life for Estes
Park and Estes Valley residents.
2. We support a 5% total cap in residential areas. This will prevent older residential
areas with houses less than $350,000-400,000 continuing to be prime investment
targets which create a higher density of VRBOs. Areas like Carriage Hills will
continue to be a prime buyout area and run the risk of neighborhoods shuttered and
dark with too many short term rental units and subsequently unaffordable housing for
young families and long-term renters. Not utilizing a cap in residential zoning districts
will create the same similar problem found in other Colorado mountain towns where
there is no sign of life as you drive through residential neighborhoods. Public schools
will have fewer children, neighborhood life is limited, and no community centers are
needed.
3. In addition some process must be developed that limits the number of VRBO’s on a
particular street. What is a reasonable number on a cul-de-sac with nine homes? If
you doubled the cap density to 10% for a particular street that would limit the number
of VRBO’s on our street to one.
4. What is a reasonable annual increase for the maximum VRBO density cap in
residential zones?
Please consider a small 2-3 % increase in residential zones based on the total
residential units/zone.
If total housing units do not increase in a year then no new permits are issued that year.
That will help avoid the concentration of VRBOs in middle and lower income
neighborhoods that are disruptive.
92
5. Who will police the complaints and code violations? Certainly not only one staff
member for the Town of Estes Park Planning Dept. The Larimer County and Estes
Park police cannot spend all their time enforcing mandated VRBO violations. This
leaves us, the neighbors, to steadily address the violations of noise, trespassing,
garbage, cars everywhere on the street, too many people in the VRBO (once there
were 26 people in the 3 bedroom house with 11 cars and 2 motorcycles) and chase
down the management company.
6. As an Ambassador at the Estes Park Visitor Center we were informed by Visit Estes
Park that the lodging receipts were slightly down for August. Now we know that there
was no decrease in tourist/guests but that the VRBOs accommodated those guests.
Sad that those businesses that invested in property and buildings
(hotels/cabins/lodges) are also victims to having their business stolen by VRBOs.
The flip side is that many of those lodging businesses, in order to survive and
flourish, are quickly buying houses and properties and managing them, thus further
contributing to the housing shortage for young families or long-term renters and local
long-term workers.
7. Affordable long-term rentals for individuals who wish to work and live here are non-
existent. Sure, the investors purchasing homes for VRBOs make money but it feels
shameful that lower cost housing is sold for VRBOs while short and long-term
workers live in their cars and other unsafe housing arrangements. We volunteer at
Crossroads Ministries and see the impact that people living in cars and substandard
housing have on donated social services. Do we foresee a day where Town of Estes
Park shuttles will daily pick up and return long-term workers to the valley similar to
what Vail, Aspen, and many other mountain towns must now do to have workers?
8. We intentionally bought a small lot within the Town in 1999 and built a home in a
single-family zoned residential area. We are now living on a street that has become
an accommodation zone with permanent changes to our neighborhood. Many areas
have homeowner associations that protect them from these changes but the rest of
us are subject to the whims of the real estate market and investors who compete for
investment properties.
9. If a VRBO cap is approved then we suggest that real estate agents must disclose the
cap in their sales with information to potential buyers that capacity limits exist and will
be enforced.
10. Tourists and guests bring revenue but homeowner taxes are paid regardless of who
lives in the house. But tourists/guests and investor owners do not volunteer at the
Estes Park Visitor Center, at Crossroads, provide free AARP tax service at the
library, work for weeks on flood clean-up, support the library, help with the
neighborhood clean-up, or a host of other community involvement areas that enrich
and make this a good place to call home.
The VRBO issues are tough ones but it will be impossible to build and retain strong
affordable community residential neighborhoods and also continue this mad rush to
meet the demands of investors who will continue to want more and more and more.
93
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Suzanne K Miller <asmillerco@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:00 PM
Subject: STVR
To: planning@estes.org
Thank you for this opportunity to respond once again as we have followed with great interest
and participation regarding Short Term Vacation Rentals outside the Town limits but cannot
attend the meeting scheduled for Dec. 15th.
Please note that we heartily support the recommendations by the Estes Valley Planning
Commission regarding 9+ vacation rentals in the county portion of the Estes Valley as stated in
the Estes Valley Planning Commission:Vacation Rental Position Document dated November 29,
2016. It was with great dismay to us that the Vacation Rental Task Force was in such disarray
concerning participation of members, members selected, and those resigning the task force. In
addition when the overall consensus standard was abandoned for a majority rule, that was most
unfortunate.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter that has serious implications for the home
values of those of us who are County and year round residents within residential zoning. Keep
short term rentals of 9+ out of residential zoning in the County.
Suzanne and Alan Miller
2700 Eagle Rock Drive
Estes Park, CO 80517
asmillerco@gmail.com
94
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <mjkinney@aol.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 5:15 PM
Subject: Vacation Rentals
To: planning@estes.org, lgaiter@larimer.org, donnelt@larimer.org, johnsosw@co.larimer.co.us,
Tajirsa@gmail.com, wkoenig@estes.org, bholcomb@estes.org, wnelson@estes.org, rnorris@e
stes.org, cwalker@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org
My husband and I own a home in Windcliff, which is in the Windcliff vacation rental program. I
am writing to beg you not to require us to rebuild our current home to commercial building codes
or restrict us from being able to continue having our vacation rental home permit. If you feel
compelled to take these actions, we ask to be grandfathered in, because we bought our
property in good faith expecting to have these rights. You could impose these restrictions on
properties that become vacation rentals in the FUTURE, but to do this to current owners is
egregious and would create massive hardships for us.
Windcliff has professional vacation rental managers on site on the mountain in the "gatehouse"
office at Windcliff. Our community of Windcliff and the rental program works very diligently to
maintain the peace and beauty of our mountain living. We are not threatening our mountain way
of life with noise, lots of lights, lots of vehicles, etc., because our rental management has self-
restricted our contracts with rental guests. If any issues arise, we as a community quickly take
care of them to protect our community. The rental managers live on the mountain, so it is their
home too, and they enforce the rules of our rental guests for all our sakes. It's for our sakes as
owners, too, because we will one day live there when others' rental guests will be visiting. Also,
Windcliff actually began as estate vacation rentals in the 1970s, so it is deeply ingrained in who
we are. Whenever anyone buys property at Windcliff, they are aware that we are a community
with vacation rentals. This in many instances actually enables people to afford to buy homes at
Windcliff.
Additionally, our homes are very expensive and can in no way be called "affordable housing,"
so we are not threatening affordable housing in Estes Park. In fact, in at least one case, the
vacation rentals MADE the housing MORE affordable. For example, the previous owners, the
Phillips, of one of our neighboring homes in Windcliff were retired and on a fixed income.
They actually supplemented their income by putting their home into the vacation rental program
at Windcliff in the summers. My husband and I are thinking of doing this also after we retire to
Windcliff.
After vacationing in Estes Park for several years, my husband and I bought our home in
Windcliff in 2001 with the plan to retire there one day. However, the price of the home was so
high for us (my husband is a high school teacher, and I am a staff member at a state university,
and we do not make much money) that the only way we could afford it was to put the home
95
into the vacation rental program to help pay for the mortgage. The rental income does not cover
the entire cost of owning the home, but it makes it doable (when there are no fires or floods), so
we can retire there one day. We are not making any profit but losses every year.
This endeavor of owning a home at Windcliff is not a commercial business. If it were, we would
have gone out of business within the first year of ownership. Instead, it is a personal investment
for our retirement. Since our home is intended to be a residence in a residential community, I
ask that you not impose commercial building codes upon our home other than things like fire
extinguishers, carbon monoxide detectors, etc. Our home was built in 1987 and would be
egregiously expensive to change to commercial codes. If you pass a law stating that we must
do this, we and a very large number of owners would be forced to sell our homes in a market
that no longer would allow vacation rentals. Also, please do not restrict (through a lesser
number of or more restrictive permits) our ability even to have a vacation rental home. Our
retirement is predicated on this plan of having our home be a vacation rental until we can retire
there probably within 10 years. To do anything to jeopardize our vacation rental would
jeopardize our future. We have invested a lot of money into our property and the vacation rental
plan, knowing that this is making it possible for us to have our home fully paid for when we
retire. In the meantime, we are providing a lovely experience for families to vacation in a
beautiful mountain setting.
In addition to hurting our and other owners' financial futures, requiring commercial building
codes and/or not granting us permits to maintain our vacation rentals would have a very
significant negative impact on the Town of Estes Park:
1. Reselling homes without the ability to have vacation rentals would become much more
difficult and could increase time on market and possibly lower the price. This would hurt the real
estate market and the livelihoods of realtors in the Estes area.
2. Having less vacation homes would hurt the economy of the town with less visitors spending
money. This would mean less sales for business, less jobs for the citizens both in the shops and
in the vacation rentals themselves, and less sales tax revenue for the town and state. Some
businesses would need to close. Those business owners and employees would all lose their
livelihoods.
3. Vacation rental companies such as Windcliff would go out of business. Those business
owners and employees would all lose their livelihoods.
4. Having less vacation rentals available would make visitors look to other mountain-town
settings for their trips where more vacation homes are allowed. Vacation rental homes are
becoming an increasingly popular way of vacationing as people bring family and friends on
vacations. Our guests frequently write notes in our guest book about their experiences in our
home. They love the home setting where everyone can gather together (instead of being
confined to individual hotel or motel rooms). They love being able to lounge all together in the
living room by the fire, make popcorn, and watch together one of the 100's if movies or play the
board games we have there for them. They love having the ability to cook for their family in the
fully equipped kitchen and eat all together around our family heirloom dining table. They love
having plenty of space for everyone also with lots of privacy. They love having the ability to let
the kids go downstairs to play with the toys and video-game equipment that we have for them.
They love how we have lots of books for them to read and a place that actually looks and
feels like their home away from home with all the touches of an actual home. They love having
96
an attached garage to keep their car free of snow and ice. In short, they love vacation home
rentals, and many will travel no other way. Estes Park would lose all those vacationers and the
money they spend in town.
If the town is dealing with specific issues such as noise, lights, vehicles, lack of affordable
housing, etc., I recommend dealing more specifically with those issues and NOT using a broad
brush to paint all vacation rentals as the problem needing to be fixed. Our Windcliff setting is
working very well and does not appear to be the source of any of the issues I have read about.
It feels like we are the scapegoat. Instead, I encourage you to consider specific ways to limit the
noise, lights, and other issues, and not create sweeping regulations that would result in
disastrous unintended consequences such as the four I mentioned above.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration,
Margaret J. Kinney
640 E. 3rd Street
Eaton, CO 80615
97
From: Randy Vavrina <rvavrina@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:32 PM
Subject: December 15, 2016 Meeting Concerning Estes Valley Development Code Amendment
:Sec. 5.1.B
To: kthompson@estes.org
To: Estes Park Board of Trustees Larimer County Board of County Commissioners
Subject: December 15, 2016 Meeting Concerning Estes Valley Development Code Amendment
:Sec. 5.1.B
From: Randall Vavrina
I plead that you consider my points prior to your decision regarding the above subject at your
joint meeting in December 16, 2016 meeting.
In 1999 my wife and family were encouraging me to purchase a second home in the
mountains. We are a family of a modest income and I am an owner of a small business in a
small Nebraska town, where relationships with friends and neighbors ranks high. At the time I
was prejudiced against owning a second home because it just did not make economic sense to
invest hundreds of thousands of dollars versus renting a hotel room. Despite my prejudice, I
pledged that I would consider the issue. We were particularly fond of Estes Park and the Rocky
Mountain National Park area. We happened to be in Estes Park because of a funeral of a
relative. While there, we contacted a realtor and looked at various properties. I was amazed at
the high cost of the real estate. Modest, 1960 vintage homes with 2 -3 bedrooms, were priced
at $300,000. Similar homes in our small town would sell for $30,000 to $50,000. With this
knowledge, I postponed that investment idea.
Later that summer, we took a family vacation in Yellowstone National park and up to
Glacier National Park. Along the way and at every opportunity, we picked up realtor brochures
from mountain communities and it became clear that mountain properties shared one common
denominator - high prices. Despite that fact and because my wife had recently received an
inheritance from her deceased father, the family continued to promote the ownership of
a mountain home.
Later in the summer of that year, I succumbed to the family pressure. Since we could not find a
home that we liked we decided to build. That meant buying a lot. I had a major hesitation of
spending $110,000 for a vacant lot in the Carriage Hills area when in Nebraska, a price like that
bought over 80 acres of farmland.
We bought the lot and built a home with the intent of renting it out to help pay for the
investment. In hindsight, I am totally delighted that the family talked me into the decision. Early
on, we were able to spend 4 or 5 trips a year at the "cabin", using vacation time and
holidays. Over the years we have been able to spend more time in our adopted community
and we intend to retire there. My family and I love Estes Park and everything associated with
it. We have also developed some good relationships with neighbors and locals alike.
The point of all this background information is that the cost of mountain property is not unique to
Estes Park. It is related to the demand to live in the mountains - not just in Estes but for the
entire Rocky Mountain region. The affordable housing issue should be decoupled from the
98
Vacation Rental property discussion. It is a beast of its own right and needs to be attacked
separately. Most young teachers, professionals etc. are not able to afford a lot, much less a
home today but that was no different back in 1999 - way before the vacation rental homes
became popular. Few critics of the VR discussion would argue that VR's are the reason for high
real estate prices in Lyons, CO or any other property in the Valley. There may be a handful of
VR's there but the issue of affordable housing is as big there as it is here in Estes. I know this
because our son recently bought a home in Lyons and I learned that homes there are just as
high there as they are in Estes.
Another factor related to the affordable housing issue is the fact that many of the homes in
Estes are not available to be rented because they are owned by owners who live outside of the
Estes Valley. According the Estes Valley Planning Commission Vacation Rental Position
Document, dated November 29, 2016, 3100 of the 6500 residences in Estes Park are owned
by non residents. That is 48% of all EP residences. According to that report there are an
estimated 750 VR's. That means 2750 properties are likely not available for long term
rentals. It would appear to me that this may be a bigger factor related to the affordable housing
issue.
After purchasing the lot and building our new home in 1999, we used a local rental
management company and we were able to rent out the home for 24 - 30 days a year. We
have developed a good reputation because of maintaining a quality home, inside and out. As a
result, we have expanded the number of days rented over he years. However, this was not
done at the expense of the comfort and well being of our neighbors. We have a licensed and
registered VR home, strictly adhering to the 8 and under Estes Park restriction. We have never
received a complaint of noise, wild parties or the like. Our guests have been respectful of our
property and for the most part, spend most of their time in the park or downtown. In fact, we
have had neighbors tell us that they did not even know this home was a VR home. This is no
different then if I was there with my family (although, admittedly, I spend more time working
keeping up the property than hiking in the park).
We take pride in the appearance of our home and property. We keep it up by staining the
exterior when it needs it (it looks as good today as the day it was built). We sprayed 30 trees for
the past 6 years for MPB. We cut down the dead trees and branches and planted new
trees. We pick up the litter and we respect the dark sky laws with a 10 minute timer on our
walkway lights that illuminate the dark walk to the house from the drive at night with just enough
time to reach the house. We make sure that our garbage is secured from nuisance
bears. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for other neighboring properties, some of which
are a long term rentals and others are properties also owned by out of towners but not rented
out (short term or long term). Our home fits well and enhances the value of homes in the
Carriage Hills area and Estes Park in general.
We also pay sales tax and property tax that is beneficial the town of EP and Larimer
County. We spend thousands of dollars annually to the local electricians, plumbers, heating
and air repairmen, painters, hardware and grocery store and our housekeeper. Our rental
tenants contribute equally to the economy. However, none of this will continue if we should not
be given one of the limited licenses. Also, even if we were not given one of those limited
licenses, we would not rent out our home for a long term rental because we would want it for our
personal use.
99
I am in favor of making sure that VR homes be licensed and that these homes be managed so
as not to be a nuisance - just as the case should be for non VR homes. Nobody wants
nuisance neighbors. However, I fear that those opposed to VR's may use the licensing and
regulations to their advantage by submitting or filing false claims - so as to get a nearby VR
closed.
I also ask that you reject the recommendation by the planning committee to place a cap on the
number of licensed VR's. On the surface this seems like a good solution to those opposed to
VR's. However, the results of a cap will only be harmful to everybody. It would result in a
limited number of VR homes. In turn, because of supply and demand, it would result in higher
rental rates. The surveys that have been conducted have indicated that Estes Park lodging is
already coming up short in supply. Long term, a reduction in available lodging will limit
expansion of the Estes Park economy and result in a change in the demographics of the typical
Estes Park visitor. I do not believe that this is the result you want.
Limiting the number of VR's would also result in a reduction in the value
of everybody's property. Opponents say this is what is needed for affordable
housing. However, to make the current real estate market affordable, there would need to be a
75% reduction in current values. I doubt limiting VR's would have that type of impact. However,
it very well could result in a 25% or greater reduction. This is significant if you are a seller of
your property in the future. Are Estes Park homeowners willing to take this kind of hit to the net
worth of their property? Yet at the same time, the property values would still be out of reach to
those needing affordable housing.
I believe the real issue comes down to enforcement of being neighborly and accountable. The
joint board of trustees would be best off concentrating on making all VR's licensed, not forcing
them underground and holding the property owners accountable for the conduct of their renters
but not with a cap.
Sincerely,
Randall Vavrina
Estes Park Property Owner
100
From: Lauri <laurigrady@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Vacation rentals 9 & above; 851 Panorama Circle
To: planning@estes.org, lgaiter@larimer.org, donnelt@larimer.org, johnsosw@larimer.org, tajirs
a@gmail.com, wkoenig@estes.org, bholcomb@estes.org, wnelson@estes.org, rnorris@estes.o
rg, cwalker@estes.org, pmartchink@estes.org
After attending the meeting of the Board of Appeals on December 8, I feel that I should provide
input on the issues of building codes and safety concerns for existing VR homes.
First, safety concerns apply equally to visitors of all VR homes regardless of the size of the
home. E g a 3 bedroom 2 story home could be less safe than a 6 bedroom 1 story home. It is
likely that more than 65% of future visitors staying in existing VR homes will be in homes for 8
and under and should be as safe as those staying in 9and above VR homes. So please do not
make arbitrary distinctions. Please impose only truly valid requirements based on an inspection
of each existing VR home.
Second, please be fully aware that imposing new expensive requirements on existing VR
homes can potentially threaten the survival of these small businesses; which may be the
retirement nest egg of the owner. I know that safety must come first but, again, my request is to
impose only truly valid requirements based on inspections of each home.
Thank you all for your hard work on these difficult issues.
Yours truly
Lauri Grady
303-956-1673
P s please forward this letter to members of the Board of Appeals; I couldn't find their emails.
Thank you.
> On Nov 28, 2016, at 10:23 AM, Lauri <laurigrady@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you all for all your hard work on this difficult issue. I know you are close to making your
final decisions. I am writing this to give you my input. I have attended many of the meetings but
have never made a public comment. I own a home at 851 Panorama Circle; 7000 sf, 1.4 acres,
far more than 25 feet setbacks, 6 bedrooms, 6 baths. I am hoping to be grandfathered for 9 and
above. I have been allowing 9 and above as permitted by the moratorium. To put it simply, If I
am not allowed to continue with 9 and above, it will be financially devastating. I manage and
clean my rental home; I bought a cabin 12 minutes away to live when Panorama home is rented
and am always available 24 hours. Again, thank you for your time and consideration.
> Best wishes
> Lauri Grady
> 303-956-1673
101
450 Lakefront Street, Estes Park, CO 80517
December 12, 2016
Re: December 15, 2016 Joint Meeting On Vacation Home Rentals (VHRs)
Dear Town Trustees and County Commissioners:
Disallowing 9+ VHRs in the Estes Valley after June 1, 2017 will have long term, deleterious
effects on our local economy. Not only will we lose the revenue generated by 9+ guests who
will take their business elsewhere. Most importantly, we will lose potential future guests and
residents. Prior child vacationers become future adult guests. Prior adult guests become future
retired residents. The wonderful multi-generational family reunions with a destination of Rocky
Mountain National Park cannot occur in VHRs that house only 8 people.
Allowing 9+ in residential districts, with a free market instead of an artificial cap, should be given
a chance. Yearly reviews of new 9+ VHRs could offer plenty of opportunities to establish a
separate 9+ cap at a later date if the free market approach is producing too rapid growth or the
9+ VHR are not responding to new enforcement practices. Please reconsider the Task Force’s
recommendation to allow 9+ VHRs in residential districts.
I am deeply disturbed by the public demonstration of a very obvious, very strong bias against 9+
VHRs by all members of the Estes Valley Planning Commission and their refusal to endorse
those Task Force recommendations for which unanimity was the most difficult to achieve. I am
also concerned that the data and graphs which are driving many of the recent decisions were
not compiled by an unbiased entity. This last joint meeting should be held after, not before, the
services of the unbiased entity, I Compass, have been engaged and unbiased data become
available. My greatest concern, however, is that those who chose to resign from the Task Force
are being given back the voices they chose to forfeit when they made the decisions to resign.
The work of those of us who continued in this harrowing experience will be totally wasted if you
simply bow to the very small, very vocal VHR opposition of those members of the community
whose representatives chose to resign from the Task Force you appointed. If bowing to the
opposition was your original intention, Task Force members could have saved ourselves a huge
amount of time and stress.
Similarly, if requiring sprinklers for VHRs when many small hotels are not sprinkled, was part of
the original strategy if all else failed, the Task Force was a huge waste of our time. Sprinklers
are currently required in all new construction in Estes Park. That’s as far as it should go in
residential buildings. Sprinklers should not be required for new VHRs of previously built homes
now or in the future.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Millicent Cozzie
VHR Task Force Member
102
From: Patti Freudenburg <pfreudenburg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:12 PM
Subject: Draft Amendment re: VRBOs
To: planning@estes.org, Theresa Gene Oja <theresaoja@gmail.com>, Hornbein Kathy
<kwren2@gmail.com>, Patti Freudenburg <pfreudenburg@gmail.com>
Our family has owned a home on Devil's Gulch for over 40 years, and we have some concerns
about the language in the draft for the Estes Valley Development Code regarding vacation
home rentals.
No where in the document can I find reference to appropriate uses .... Does that mean that
anybody (as long as they are considered as "one party") can rent? Events? Weddings? Frat
parties? Retreats?
In our area the houses tend to be large, and often can sleep a great number of people. The
septic systems designed for those homes, however, were not built to accommodate a constant
stream (no pun intended) of full occupancy. How will over-taxed septic systems, quite possibly
risking our own ground water, to be monitored?
In the case of code violations that are non-emergencies, it appears that we are to complete a
form. The problems we have out here (typically noise, crowds, live bands, harassment of
wildlife, illegal bonfires) are usually NOT of an 'emergency' basis in terms of being life
threatening. The nuisance to us is very real, however!!
If we complete the form, since the owner/manager has 15 days to correct the situation, what is
to prevent them from simply responding that they won't rent to that particular offending party
again?
Those of us not within Town limits are also VERY concerned about enforcement. Our sheriff's
office is stretched so thin -- their possible response to our 'non-emergency' situations is simply
not adequate.
How will enforcement change in the future?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Patti Freudenburg & Tony White
103