HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/2017 - Planning And Zoning Board - Supplemental Documents - Supplemental DocumentsDate: August 17, 2017
To: Planning and Zoning Board
From: Michelle Haefele
RE: Short term rentals
I am writing to give my perspective on the Ordinance that you will be reviewing tonight regarding Short
Term Rentals (STRs). I and many other concerned residents spent years working with the city to ensure
that this commercial industry did not encroach into our residential neighborhoods.
The ordinance that was passed by City Council in March of this year reflects a compromise that
recognizes that lodging businesses are not appropriate (nor allowed) in residential zones, while at the
same time allowing any existing operator to become permanently “grandfathered” as a non-conforming
use (a right which would extend to all subsequent property owners).
The only requirement was that these operators acquire lodging and sales tax licenses by March 31, 2017
and the newly created STR license by June 30, 2017.
Following the March 31 deadline many operators discovered that they were not in compliance. Council
members were sympathetic and requested an extension for these existing operators. This is reasonable.
However the Ordinance that has been proposed goes far beyond this well-intentioned extension.
It would allow properties that are on separate but adjacent parcels owned by the same person to be
classified as “primary” STRs (currently defined as lodging within a primary residence). This redefinition
would extend the number of whole house vacation rentals into more zones, including new entrants (not
just grandfathered existing operators).
The Ordinance would also allow long-term rental tenants to operate primary STRs. This is unacceptable.
First because this would also expand the number of STRs in residential zones and because this
arrangement would allow landlords to circumvent the Occupancy Ordinance.
The original Ordinance was extremely generous to existing operators. It should not be expanded. Please
recommend that the new ordinance only extend the deadlines for operators who can prove that they
were operating prior to March 31, 2017. No other STRs should be permanently grandfathered into
residential zones.
Thank you,
Michelle Haefele
Planning and Zoning Board,
Over the past few years I have been involved in two citizen initiative efforts requiring
working with both staff and council. In both instances we were told from the beginning that
we needed to follow a process. A process which stated what our desired change was and
why we were requesting it. This required us to read and understand the land use code,
write the proposed code, present it to staff, and debate it. All before it could ever be
considered before council for a vote.
What’s been frustrating with the STR effort is that I feel staff failed to follow the advice they
have demanded of us. When the first STR operator came forward, they made no apparent
effort to follow a process or consider the long-term consequences. Instead, they simply
issued a sales and use and lodging tax. The proper process would have been to recognize
that STR’s were undefined uses in the land use code, enact a moratorium, engage in public
debate, and then craft an ordinance.
And why were those first STR licenses issued? My theory is that it is borne of the City’s
philosophy of compliance over enforcement. I believe this philosophy has become so
ingrained in the culture of the City that staff’s initial impulse is to seek compliance without
considering the consequences. Some may refer to this as “management by exception,” I
prefer to simply view it as an aversion to being perceived in a negative light, or as the bad
guy.
So here we are months after the initial STR ordinance has been passed, yet never
implemented, and where you will decide whether to recommend to Council the changes to
the ordinance that are before you tonight. Another example of the City’s compliance first
philosophy.
As a member of the Neighborhood Action Coalition, I wholeheartedly back the arguments
others have presented before you tonight. These post-ordinance proposed changes and the
lack of public discussion of them are a slap in the face to residents who have spent two plus
years fighting to prevent the commercialization of their neighborhoods. I urge you to
recommend denying the proposed changes and state the case for enforcement of the STR
ordinance as it stands today.
Mike Knowles
From: Cindy Cosmas
To: P&Z Board
Cc: Ted Shepard; Tiana Smith; Ginny Sawyer
Subject: FW: Proposed STR code revisions.
Date: Thursday, August 17, 2017 7:31:24 AM
Board, here is one of two emails I received - I will have copies for you tonight of both!
Cindy
-----Original Message-----
From: Denney,Martha [mailto:Martha.Denney@ColoState.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 9:23 PM
To: Cindy Cosmas
Subject: Proposed STR code revisions.
Dear P and Z Board Members,
I am confused and more than a little upset about what you are voting on related to STRs.
If someone ignored two years of discussion on rules related to STRs- or if they moved in from elsewhere and didn't
manage to get licensed to run a legal STR before the City Council passed the new rules, why should they be eligible
to be "grandfathered" for that use? Grandfathering assumes they had something in place-LEGALLY- by the
deadline date. To make exceptions for people who could not manage a straightforward process to be in compliance
should not be rewarded. To approve this is an insult to those who were law abiding and who have made an effort to
run their business in a competent way. Do not extend any deadlines for those who did not stay in compliance.
Adding even more STRs contributes to higher housing costs and has a deleterious effect on neighborhoods. Why is
P and Z even taking this issue up?
I am also dumbfounded that you propose to allow renters to become amateur hoteliers. This is proving to be
problematic in other communities. To do this in a rapidly growing community with a large student market is simply
begging for problems. It will confound enforcement of existing codes and lay an unreasonable burden of attempting
to resolve problems on neighbors. What makes you think people who are hard pressed to mow their yard or take out
their garbage will suddenly become responsible hoteliers? Will rental registration become a part of the process so
landlords who supposedly sign off on the scheme can be found when problems arise? This proposal is ill-conceived,
ill-timed and another assault on citizens attempts to create and maintain quality neighborhoods.
Thank you. Martha Denney
Martha Denney
Martha.denney@colostate.edu
(970) 218.5099 sent from my mobile phone