Short-term Rental Proposed Regulations

[conrad mccarty]

Dear Larimer County Commissioners,

My name is Conrad McCarty and my wife and I are property owners in the Estes Valley.  I am writing to you concerning the proposed regulations for short-term rentals (STRs).  We have owned our vacation home in the Estes Valley since ~2002.  We were able to afford our vacation home by being able to rent it part of the time when we were not occupying it.  We have guests who have been coming back to our property year-after-year.

Our home is located in the Blue Spruce Village subdivision - a group of 20 condominiums, of which there are 8 or 9 rentals (since the re-construction of the neighborhood in the mid 1980's, Blue Spruce Village has had rental vacation homes). Before the reconstruction, there were individual rental cabins on the property - those were razed just prior to the reconstruction.  

As required, our vacation home was originally registered/licensed with the Town of Estes Park (original registration #3248) and then more recently with Larimer County (Registration # 20-NCD0142).

Although I appreciate the efforts to provide more guidance (and oversight) for short-term vacation rentals, I believe the proposed regulations have a number of flaws, particularly as it relates to existing short-term vacation rental owners.  The law of unintended consequences comes to mind - it feels like existing STR owners may be unduly and unjustly affected by these regulations, despite years of compliance and adherence to prior requirements and being conscientious owners and neighbors.  

Below are a few of the more significant concerns that we have relative to the proposed Short-Term Rental and Lodging Regulations.

1.  The proposed regulations are discriminatory.  Property in the Estes Valley should be treated and regulated similarly to other parts of Larimer County.  For example, why are the regulations for Estes Valley more restrictive than areas where there are also higher proportion of vacation rentals such as Red Feather Lakes?

2.  Zoning District for our property in the Blue Spruce Village subdivision (2222 Highway 66).  The Highway 66 corridor looks to be primarily EV-A and EV-A1.  The map provided does not provide enough detail for us to tell what our property would be/is zoned as.  If I look at the Larimer County Zoning Parcel Search screen for the property, it shows "Larimer County Zoning District:  EV R1".   There is not an EV R1 category in Table 13-1 of the proposed regulations.  More information is needed for us and the public to be able to provide additional feedback on proposed zoning categories.

3.  In Article 3, Section 3.3.5 B. 2. c., there is a restriction concerning "minimum of 500 feet from another short-term rental".  For our property and subdivision and adjacent properties, there are a number of existing short-term vacation rentals already licensed and this requirement is not consistent with the existing use of the property and should this provision be enforced to existing licensed properties - it would be taking away property rights for owners.  I ask the Commissioners for further guidance relative to how this provision would apply to our subdivision.

4.  In Article 3, Section 3.3.5 B. 2. l., the requirement that the property manager (owner or representative) be located within 30 minutes or less travel distance from the short-term rental.  This new draft of the regulations changed the time that used to be 1 hour.  The requirement should be reverted to 1 hour.  

We are "hands-on" rental owners - we are in contact with our guests throughout their stay.  We are also involved in our subdivision, serving on the HOA Board of Directors.  It can take longer than 30 minutes to get to our property, especially in the summer time (traffic in and around Estes and the National Park is heavy in the summer and it can add 15 minutes to our travel time).  We believe the travel distance time should be 1 hour.

5.  As it relates to existing STR owners, should the regulations proceed in the current proposed form, we believe that it will result in a change in our rights as property owners and is the equivalent to the taking of property rights.  Additionally, it will have an undue economic impact for existing STR owners and vendors that provide services to our renters and our property.

Thank you for reading our note and your consideration of the items identified above.

Conrad McCarty

720-839-5514

[conrad mccarty]

Dear Larimer Board of County Commissioners:

I am following up on my prior note to you concerning the most recent (February 24, 2023) short-term rental regulations draft.  

My wife and I purchased our property in the Estes Valley 20 years ago - we have been able to use it as a vacation home and also defray costs by doing limited short-term rentals.  We originally were registered with Estes Park when Estes Park began STR compliance and then we transitioned to Larimer County when Larimer County began compliance of homes outside of Estes Park city limits.

We have self-managed the property as we have found that our guests are more responsive and responsible when they know they are dealing with the owners and we also have found that we are more responsive to any issues or concerns that neighbors may alert us to.

We live outside of the Estes Valley but within ~45 minutes of the home (sometimes as it only takes 30 minutes if we are at our Wild Basin property). 

While we agree with many of the Safety Standards and the Transfer of Short-term Rental License (this is very important given the history of our neighborhood - see 1. below), we are concerned with the following specific items within the updated draft STR regulations:

1.  Our Estes Valley property is located at 2222 Highway 66, Estes Park (outside the Estes city limits).  The subdivision (Blue Spruce Village) comprises 20 condos - nearly half of which are STRs.  The HOA allows for STRs.  We are concerned with "re-zoning" of our subdivision and a restriction on the distance between another STR - by having such a restriction, it would disallow all but one of the STRs in our subdivision.  We respectfully request that the zoning be reconsidered for our subdivision, particularly because our subdivision was originally established for rentals (original cabins on the property were STRs).

2.  Article 13, Section 13.6.1 C 5.  Under this provision, it would not allow us to self-manage our property (and guests).  Although we can be at our property within 45 minutes, our other residences are not within the Estes Valley Recreation & Park District boundary.  We believe that requirement is arbitrary - we have a property close to Allenspark (actually, at the Wild Basin entrance to RMNP) and that property is not within the "boundary".  However, we are very close and I'm sure more responsive than non-owner property managers!  We respectfully request that the parameters of this provision in the draft revert to the requirement that the property manager be within 1 hour of the property (FYI - we believe that property owners are much more responsive to guests and neighbors than property management companies...).

Additionally, in thinking about the residency requirement for the Estes Valley Recreation & Park District boundary, we are reminded of the recent United States Court of Appeals (Fifth Circuit) ruling that established that a residency requirement is unconstitutional.  

3.  We are somewhat concerned about the variation in requirements between proposed regulations in Larimer County outside of Estes Valley and the regulations for Estes Valley.  The different requirements seem somewhat arbitrary, or even discriminatory.  For example - Red Feather Lakes has quite a few STRs and it makes me wonder why there are two different sets of restrictions or standards?  

4.  While the current draft allows for transferability of the license, we request that the provision continue to be maintained (i.e., we fully support that provision for transferability of existing Larimer County and Estes Valley STR licenses).  Neighbors in our subdivision purchased their homes under the provision that they could do STRs (our HOA has always allowed STRs).  Restricting the transferability would be akin to taking away a property right and would have a very negative impact on their property values.  We request that the County continue with the regulation allowing for transferability of the license.  

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Conrad McCarty

720-839-5514

[conrad mccarty]

Dear Larimer County Commissioners - 

I am sending this note as a follow-up to my prior notes and I hope that you consider some of the below points prior to the ruling.  I watched last week's STR discussion and I appreciate the time and attention that you have dedicated to hearing from the affected parties - both STR owners and other individuals and I have a number of comments and questions.

1.  I still don't understand why there are two sets of rules for STRs in Larimer County.  Why does one segment of the county get preferential treatment (less stringent or more stringent rules - depending on which perspective you take)?  I would suggest just one set of uniform rules.  

2.  During the most recent call/meeting, it was clear that some individuals against STRs have had bad experiences with neighbors.  I would like to hear how many complaints have been logged and the outcomes of those complaints.  I wonder if there is an enforcement issue that needs to be addressed or if there are other factors at play? 

3.  I am curious as to what the transition rule and timing will be.  For example, if there are life/safety inspections - when will they be completed?  For Estes Valley STRs - a new rule on a manager living within the  Estes Valley Recreation & Park District boundary, when does that become effective and should there be a transition period (STR owners have likely already booked much of the 2023 summer - should the requirement apply to guests making new reservations after a certain date?).  

4.  The 500 foot distance restriction doesn't work for all situations and it seems like there will need to be allowable exceptions.  For example, our property is located at 2222 Highway 66 - we are sandwiched by resorts on both sides of us and our community (20 townhomes) also have approximately 8 STRs - we would be unable to comply with the 500 foot requirement.

5.  Article 13, Section 13.6.1 C 5.  Under this provision, it would not allow us to self-manage our property (and guests).  Although we can be at our property within 45 minutes often in much less time if we are at our Wild Basin RMNP property, our other residences are not within the Estes Valley Recreation & Park District boundary.  We believe that requirement is arbitrary - we have a property close to Allenspark (actually, at the Wild Basin entrance to RMNP) and that property is not within the "boundary".  However, we are very close and I'm sure more responsive than non-owner property managers!  We respectfully request that the parameters of this provision in the draft revert to the requirement that the property manager be within 1 hour of the property (FYI - we believe that property owners are much more responsive to guests and neighbors than property management companies...).

6.  We ask that you support the perspective of the Planning Commission to maintain the unrestricted transferability of STR licenses.

Thanks for your work and for your consideration,

Conrad McCarty

2222 Highway 66

Estes Park