Comments Regarding the Vacation Rental Position Document by the Estes Valley Planning Commission

The position of the Planning Commission is that the growth of vacation rentals in the Estes Valley has grown in a largely unregulated and unlimited way with the result that residential communities are being degraded. This is a blanket position for all neighborhoods in the Estes Valley including Windcliff without any regard for individual neighborhoods, their traditions or their residents. The past and proposed regulations are the direct result of years of complaints from homeowners in residential neighborhoods who feel their rights have been trampled by vacation rental businesses operating nearby. It is not clear to me that the Planning Commission is “balancing” the needs for guest housing. Their intent is clearly to increase regulations and enforcement of vacation rentals without regard to any “balancing”. Windcliff was zoned “Estate One Acre” or E-1 and vacation rentals are a permitted use for that zoning type. Thus vacation rentals in Windcliff Estates are in conformance with our zoning. When we purchased our property at Windcliff, we were fully aware of this zoning and the permitted use as vacation rentals. We counted on this since we could not have afforded to buy the property without the prospects of income from vacation rentals. Any new regulations which preclude or effectively diminish vacation rentals would directly impact us. I think Comissioners should consider the impact of new regulations on current owners who have posed no problems due to vacation rentals. Vacation rentals at Windcliff were started by the developers, Don and Wylene Buser, from the very foundation of the Windcliff Estates development in order to promote lot sales and provide income for owners so that they could build their Windcliff homes prior to retirement. A principle focus of Windcliff Properties, which has managed most vacation rentals at Windcliff over the last 30 years has been not only to provide income for property owners, but also to protect the mountain, assist owners in the maintenance and upkeep of their homes, and to 1

minimize the effect of vacation rentals on the quality of life at Windcliff. Every owner of the rental business controlling and supporting the great majority of vacation rentals at Windcliff has been a full-time resident of Windcliff Estates. I am not aware of any problems or complaints regarding vacation rentals at Windcliff during our ownership. In addition to complaints from residential homeowners, the Planning Commission seems to be influenced by a popular public perception that vacation rentals have reduced the availability of affordable long-term rentals. The lack of affordable housing is indeed an issue in Estes Park in that many of the workforce cannot find an affordable place to live in town. The “CAST Report and the Estes Park Area Housing Needs Study” are referenced in the Position Paper and are being used to justify increased regulation and limitations on vacation rental homes by suggesting vacation rentals are reducing the number of affordable homes available in the Estes Park area. Unfortunately, what the studies do not address is specific local neighborhoods (like Windcliff) or their current real estate values. It should surprise none of us that our homes were never really candidates for ever being considered a valid source of “affordable housing.” In fact, the average price of detached homes in the Estes Park area is in excess of $480,000 according to available MLS data. The average price of homes in Windcliff is significantly higher. I find it puzzling that the Planning Commission believes that market prices of vacation rental homes makes very many of them practical as affordable housing. The Commission intends to establish a cap on vacation rentals of 750 permits. The Cap is based on Licensed or Permitted vacation rentals. We have complied with the current requirements and have a license now. If the currently “illegal” rentals all seek licensing there will be a shortage of 300 permits. It appears to me that the Cap is partially designed to punish currently unlicensed rentals rather than encouraging all vacation rentals to become licensed or permitted.

The Position Document does not say that existing permitted or licensed rentals have priority for renewals. The very existence of a Cap will impact the real estate market for second homes when the Buyer wants the option of vacation rentals. 2

All realtors will have to disclose to Buyers that there is a Cap and there is no mechanism for a Buyer to be assured that he or she can get a license or permit before they commit to a purchase. At Windcliff most homes are second homes, and about a third of the homes or condos are in short-term rentals. It is indisputable to me that income opportunity is baked into the market for second homes, and if this opportunity is restricted Buyers will go elsewhere. The Position Document says plainly that rental permits are not transferrable to new owners of the property. However, I believe that from a legal standpoint, the permits are assigned to the property, not the individual. In general, the proposed new regulations are common sense and already long inpractice at Windcliff. We don’t anticipate even needing changes to policies in the Windcliff Properties rental program. If anything, these new regulations will just require other operators in the Estes area to bring their operations up to the high standards long established and in practice at Windcliff. However, the establishment of a cap on permits, the lack of priority for current permit holders to renew permits (or some kind of “grandfathering”), and the negative impact on property values are of great concern. I suggest that the problems with vacation rentals experienced in some other developments or locations be addressed through more stringent enforcement actions rather than bundles of new regulations affecting everyone – problem or not.

3