PZC Packet 1218181 Agenda posted on Friday, December 14, 2018 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
-Avon Municipal Building, Avon Recreation Center, Avon Public Library, Town of Avon Website www.avon.org
Please call 970-748-4023 for questions.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
100 Mikaela Way – Avon Municipal Building
If you require special accommodation, please contact us in advance and we will assist you. You may call David McWilliams at 970-
748-4023 or email cmcwilliams@avon.org for special requests.
I. Call to Order – 5:00pm
II. Roll Call
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda
IV. Conflicts of Interest
V. Wildridge Lot Split PUD Amendment – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
File: PUD18006
Applicant: Jeff Manley, Martin Manley Architects
Property: Lot 22, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop
Owner: 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop LLC, Brandt Marott
Summary: Zoning amendment to permit two single-family detached structures in place of one
duplex structure.
VI. Work Session - Code Text Amendments
Summary: Code amendment are proposed in the coming weeks for the following items:
Alternative Equivalent Compliance; Inclusionary Zoning; Development Bonus; and
Short-term Rentals. The Commission is encouraged to bring questions, comments,
and concerns to the meeting for discussion.
VII. Consent Agenda
A – December 4, 2018 Meeting Minutes
VIII. Staff Updates
IX. Adjourn
1 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
I. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 5:05 pm.
II. Roll Call – All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Nusbaum.
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda – The consent agenda was moved up to item V.
IV. Conflicts of Interest – Commissioner Glaner recused himself from item VI due to a conflict in interest.
I. Consent Agenda
A – November 20, 2018 Meeting Minutes
B – Records of Decision: AEC18010 – Colorado World Resorts Irrigation
Action: Commissioner Howell motioned to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner
Barnes seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 5-0 with commissioner
Golembiewski abstaining.
II. Wildridge Lot Split PUD Amendment - PUBLIC HEARING
File: PUD18006
Applicant: Jeff Manley, Martin Manley Architects
Property: Lot 22, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop
Owner: 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop LLC, Brandt Marott
Summary: Zoning amendment to permit two single-family detached structures in place of one
duplex structure.
Public Comment: Larry Bennett, Linda Bennett, Joe Bova Conti, Patrick Hirn, and Abbey Noonan
commented on the item.
Action: Commissioner Golembiewski motioned to continue the public hearing to the
December 18, 2018 PZC meeting due to the public notice requirements not being met.
Commissioner Barnes seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 5-0.
III. Staff Updates
Staff talked about the process of the Hahnewald Barn.
IV. Adjourn
Approved this 18th Day of December 2018
SIGNED: ___________________________________________
Chairperson
December 18, 2018 PUD Amendment Memo
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: David McWilliams, Town Planner
Meeting Date: December 18, 2018
Topic: PUD 18006 Updates
UPDATE FROM THE DECEMBER 4, 2018 PZC HEARING
Town staff gave public notice of the hearing for the wrong venue (notice was given for 1 Lake
Street, not 100 Mikaela Way) and therefore the application was continued in order to give proper
notice. Since then, the application has not changed, but the applicant has provided additional
information not initially made public during the application process, included as Attachment C.
This material shows approximations of the sight lines for two single family houses against a
footprint of a contemplated duplex. Staff feels the additional material sheds light on the views
affected, but doubts that the duplex option is still a potentiality for the site. Additional public
comment is included within Attachment B.
Staff’s analysis is not changed, and the original report sufficiently describes the project. In
situations where there was a question of the fulfillment of noticing, Town Code requires a
finding declaring that noticing was sufficient. Therefore, staff included an amended
recommended Findings and Conditions that specifically describes the compliance with noticing.
The application is scheduled for a public hearing at the January 8, 2019 Town Council meeting.
AMENDED RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
Recommended Motion:
“I move to recommend Town Council approval of Case #PUD18006, an application for a
Wildridge Lot Split PUD Amendment for Lot 22 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision with the
findings and conditions as recommended by staff.”
Findings:
1. The application meets the eligibility requirements for a Minor PUD Amendment by
not increasing density, increasing the amount of nonresidential land use, or
significantly altering any approved building scale and mass of the development;
2. The application is complete;
3. The application provides sufficient information to allow the PZC to determine that the
application complies with the relevant review criteria;
4. The application complies with the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan;
December 18, 2018 PUD Amendment Memo
5. The PUD Amendment does not change the character of the development and
maintains the intent and integrity of the PUD with two residential dwelling units on
the Property;
6. The PUD Amendment promotes the public health, safety and welfare over that of the
existing development rights for a duplex because the Applicant is imposing stricter
standards than the existing development standards;
7. The Application is in conformance with §7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria, AMC, and
compared to the underlying zoning, the Minor PUD Amendment is not likely to result
in significant adverse impacts upon the natural environment or neighboring
properties; and
8. By continuing the December 4, 2018 public hearing and re-noticing the following
public meeting schedule, substantial compliance with the notice requirements of
§7.16.020(d)(4), General procedures and requirements, was met.
Conditions:
1. Storm water drainage easements between property lines shall be demonstrated at
subdivision; and
2. A plat amendment defining the neighboring landscape easement shall be recorded at
subdivision. The review procedures for this application are governed by the
Development Code.
1 December 4, 2018 PZC Meeting – 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop PUD Amendment
Staff Report – Minor PUD Amendment
December 4, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Introduction
Jeff Manley, the Applicant, is requesting a Wilridge Lot Split Amendment (the Application) to modify the
allowed building type and driveway configuration, for Lot 22 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision (the Property).
Currently, a duplex is permitted by-right, and the allowed driveway type would normally be shared between
them. The Application would amend the zoning to change the allowed building type to construct two
(2) single-family-detached structures on re-subdivided lots, with independent driveways.
Current Conditions
Lot 22 is currently undeveloped, zoned PUD in the
Wildridge Subdivision.
Process
Minor PUD Amendment Process
According the Avon Municipal Code (AMC), a
proposed PUD amendment is considered minor if it
meets the following criteria for decision and has
been determined as such by the Director:
(A) The PUD amendment does not increase
density, increase the amount of
nonresidential land use or significantly
alter any approved building scale and mass
of development.
(B) The PUD amendment does not change the character of the development and maintains the intent
and integrity of the PUD.
(C) The PUD amendment does not result in a net decrease in the amount of open space or result in a
change in character of any of the open space proposed within the PUD.
This application is processed under §7.16.060(h)(iii), Lot Split Amendment in Wildridge PUD, AMC. The
application, as submitted, meets the criteria for a Minor Amendment.
Public Notification
In compliance with the Public Hearing and noticing requirements, a mailed notice was provided to all
property owners within 300’ of the property. Additionally, a notice was published in the Vail Daily
newspaper on November 23.
Public Hearings
The December 4 meeting accomplishes the public hearing requirement for PZC review. The Council will
make the final decision on this Application after holding one more public hearing and acting on a
Resolution. The Town Council hearing is scheduled for January 8, 2018.
Project File Case #PUD18006
Legal description Lot 22 Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning PUD
Address 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop
Owner
Prepared By
2177 Saddle Ridge Loop LLC
David McWilliams Town Planner
2 December 4, 2018 PZC Meeting – 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop PUD Amendment
Proposed PUD Amendment
The Application includes a narrative, response to the mandatory review criteria, and preliminary site and
building design plans showing a likely development concept. It requests to create two (2) separate lots
of record that each would be permitted one (1) single-family-detached structure. Approval of this request
would supersede the existing entitlements on the lots and would allow one (1) single-family-detached structure
on both lots.
The Application maintains the duplex lot standard Wildridge easements of ten (10) foot front Snow Storage,
Maintenance Easement, and seven and one-half (7.5) foot side yard drainage and utility easements around the
current property line. A completed drainage and utility easement between properties would be required before
subdivision. Proposed envelopes create about 44’ between the structures at the center with the current design
concept, however, both lot setbacks imagine a garage addition which would reduce that area by roughly twelve
(12) feet.
Staff Analysis
The current development rights allow a single-family or duplex structure on the lot. Staff encourages PZC
to view this application in two separate pieces: the duplex split component, and the split driveway
component. The driveway component was analyzed by the Town Engineer, and it was determined that to
support the necessary sight line distance, a shrub from the neighboring property needs to be removed, and
a landscape easement is required so it is not replaced in the future. Staff recommends the satisfactory
completion of a plat amendment to the neighbor’s property as a condition of approval. However, staff is
exploring the viability of using existing AMC language to achieve the same.
PUD Review Criteria
Pursuant to §7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria, AMC, the PZC shall consider the following criteria when
forming the basis of a recommendation:
(i) The PUD addresses a unique situation, confers a substantial benefit to the Town, and/or
incorporates creative site design such that it achieves the purposes of this Development Code and
represents an improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict application
of the otherwise applicable district or development standards. Such improvements in quality may include,
but are not limited to: improvements in open space provision and access; environmental protection;
tree/vegetation preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads, and other utilities and services; or increased
choice of living and housing environments.
Staff Response: The stated purposes of §7.04, Development Code, AMC, and §7.16.060, PUD, AMC, includes
statements regarding the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; regulating intensity of use; avoiding
increased demands on public services and facilities; and providing for compatibility with the surrounding
area, among other statements.
PZC should carefully weigh if the application provides compatible building layouts with the surrounding
area. The surrounding area is predominately single-family, duplex, and multi-family development. The request
for two curb cuts results in less site fill than a single drive (Attachment A, page 2). The PUD amendment
does not increase demands on public services. Other applicable development standards (parking, design
standards, access requirements) would remain intact.
(ii) The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
Staff Response: S taff finds that the PUD amendment results in a design that will promote the public health,
safety, and general welfare to the same degree of the original PUD.
3 December 4, 2018 PZC Meeting – 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop PUD Amendment
(iii) The PUD rezoning is consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, the purposes of this
Development Code, and the eligibility criteria outlined in §7.16.060(b);
Staff Response: The proposed PUD amendment is part of an established PUD and is therefore not subject
to the eligibility criteria or Public Benefit requirements outlined in §7.16.060(b). Staff finds this application
generally compliant with the purposes of the Development Code, including, “(a) Divide the Town into zones,
restricting and requiring therein the location, erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration and use of
buildings, structures and land for trade, industry, residence and other specified uses; regulate the intensity of the
use of lot areas; regulate and determine the area of open spaces surrounding such buildings; establish building
lines and locations of buildings designed for specified industrial, commercial, residential and other uses within
such areas; establish standards to which buildings or structures shall conform; establish standards for use of
areas adjoining such buildings or structures.”
The site is in the Northern Residential District (District 11 of the Comprehensive Plan), which states in its
overview, “due to the limited number of existing trees and shrubs and the open character of the property,
special care should be taken to ensure that all structures are compatible with one another and in harmony with
the natural surroundings.” The application includes a limit of disturbed area, although staff is unsure that
the application limits disturbance more than a duplex would.
This district includes Planning Principles that encourage open space preservation, sidewalks, and to,
“encourage and support development that:
• Prohibits significant alteration of natural environment as well as ridgeline and steep slope development. This
area should be highly sensitive to visual impacts of improvements, wildlife preservation, and lighting.”
(iv) Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric, police and fire
protection, and sewage and waste disposal, as applicable) will be available to serve the subject property while
maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development;
Staff Response: This PUD amendment does not change the current development rights to construct two
residential units and the existing services can adequately serve the properties. The fire department has
signed off on the proposed dual driveway.
(v) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, storm water management, wildlife, and
vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
Staff Response: When compared to the existing duplex zoning, the proposed Minor PUD Amendment
will not result in any adverse impacts upon the natural environment, wildlife, vegetation, noise, or air.
Storm water drainage easements between property lines should be a condition of approval.
(vi) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract; and
Staff Response: The proposed density and the building footprints do not adversely impact upon other areas.
(vii) Future uses on the subject tract will be compatible in scale with uses or potential future uses on
other properties in the vicinity of the subject tract.
Staff Response: Single-family-detached residential use is compatible in scale with current and potential uses
on other properties in the vicinity of the property.
Additional Review Criteria
The PZC shall review a Lot Split Amendment to the Wildridge PUD application according the following
4 December 4, 2018 PZC Meeting – 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop PUD Amendment
criteria, in addition to the review criteria for a preliminary PUD development plan:
(i) The application results in less total site coverage and contains restrictions on building envelopes
when deemed appropriate to minimize site coverage;
Staff Response: The application proposes a reduced building envelope as illustrated in Attachment A, A1.1.2
which adequately minimize site coverage.
(ii) Driveway disturbance is minimized and a shared driveway curb cut is utilized when feasible and
when a shared driveway curb cut would reduce site disturbance;
Staff Response: The application proposes two individual driveways to create a more appropriate play area
for a large family. The cut area for the two-drive design is estimated at 247 yards of cut, while the single drive
would have 527 yards of cut. Final review of and associated disturbance would take place with Development
Plan application(s), however, at this stage of review the conceptual plans indicate negligible differences in
disturbance.
(iii) Areas not appropriate for development are designated on the PUD plan;
Staff Response: The application incorporates a non-disturbance area of 3,200 s.f. on the west side as
illustrated in Attachment A, A1.1.2.
(iv) The proposed development of the site avoids disturbance of slopes greater than thirty percent
(30%) or reduces potential disturbance of slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) compared to the existing
PUD designation; and,
Staff Response: Staff did not require a slope study for this property because it does not appear to have any
30% grades. The proposed house locations and envelopes seem appropriate for the site.
(v) The PUD plan incorporates requirements and/or restrictions as deemed appropriate to minimize or
mitigate impacts to properties in the vicinity, including but not limited to:
(A) enhanced landscaping;
(B) increased building setbacks (i.e. minimum twenty (20) feet separation between buildings and a
minimum ten (10) feet setback between properties);
(C) designated building footprints;
(D) building height restrictions; and,
(E) designated architectural massing, including building square footage designation.
Staff Response: The application proposes modified building envelopes that slightly push the houses back
from the road, proposed footprints of 1900 s.f, and square footage designations of 2,800 s.f. (Attachment A,
page 1). These limitations are appropriate for the site and the vicinity.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the lot split application with the findings and conditions as listed
by staff.
Recommended Motion:
“I move to recommend Town Council approval of Case #PUD18006, an application for a Wildridge
Lot Split PUD Amendment for Lot 22 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision with the findings and conditions as
recommended by staff.”
Findings:
1. The application meets the eligibility requirements for a Minor PUD Amendment by not increasing
density, increasing the amount of nonresidential land use, or significantly altering any approved
building scale and mass of the development;
5 December 4, 2018 PZC Meeting – 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop PUD Amendment
2. The application is complete;
3. The application provides sufficient information to allow the PZC to determine that the application
complies with the relevant review criteria;
4. The application complies with the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
5. The PUD Amendment does not change the character of the development and maintains the intent
and integrity of the PUD with two residential dwelling units on the Property;
6. The PUD Amendment promotes the public health, safety and welfare over that of the existing
development rights for a duplex because the Applicant is imposing stricter standards than the
existing development standards; and
7. The Application is in conformance with §7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria, AMC, and compared to the
underlying zoning, the Minor PUD Amendment is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts
upon the natural environment or neighboring properties.
Condition:
1. Storm water drainage easements between property lines shall be demonstrated at subdivision; and
2. A plat amendment defining the neighboring landscape easement shall be recorded at subdivision.
Attachments
A: Application Materials
B: Public Comments
Date: 11-14-2018, revised 11-21-18
Meeting at TOA RE: Lot Split of 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop, Lot 22
The lot 22 at 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop is being proposed to be split into 2 single family lots.
Current conditions:
1 The Lot 22, is a .57 acre lot (24,916.63 s.f.)
2 Lot is an upward loading lot with primary views to the northeast or east.
3 There is an unbuilt design for a duplex for the lot.
a. The duplex design was for a home 2710 s.f. + garage AND 3081 s.f. + garage creating a
total s.f. of 7,694 s.f.
b. This is a long and linear design
4 There are adjacent homes bounding the property. Info from Eagle CO website
a. 002185 SADDLE RIDGE Lot 23, is .46 acres, with a single family home, 2812 s.f. (adjacent/south lot)
b. 002165 SADDLE RIDGE LP #B, .199 acres, ½ of a Duplex home, 3551 s.f. (adjacent/north lot)
c. 002165 SADDLE RIDGE LP #A, .230 acres, ½ of a Duplex home, 2962 s.f. (north of lot other half)
d. 002170 SADDLE RIDGE LP #A thru #D, View Townhome 4 plex with each at 2426 s.f. (across the
street)
e. 002190 SADDLE RIDGE LP #B, Lot 12B, .574 acres ½ a Duplex home, 2784 s.f. (across the street)
f. 002110 LONG SPUR #A, .220 acres, ½ Duplex to the west of lot, at 3065 s.f. (behind lot on west side)
g. 002110 LONG SPUR #B, .160 acres, ½ Duplex to the west of lot, at 2975 s.f. (behind lot on west side)
5 Density/current zoning is for Duplex, 2 family residence. No change to the overall density is
being requested.
6 The Parking on the duplex lot would require 3 parking spaces for each unit. No change in
parking requirements is being requested
7 The current height limitation is 35’, no change requested
8 The proposed homes will comply with the Town of Avon’s Development Code, Guidelines, and
approval procedures.
The Goal of the project is to create 2 smaller single family homes with light and air buffer between.
Important to the design is to break up the bulk and mass of the build that you would get with a large
monolithic structure of a Duplex design.
· One of the homes (north) will be occupied by the Owner (2 adults and 5 children). The other
would be a ‘for sale’ home.
· We are proposing that each home would have a compact design to maximize the green space
and outdoor living area.
· The homes would step with the natural grade of the site. The grade change from front to back
is approximately 10’. This allows the main level to walk out to grade in the back. The homes
are ‘tucked’ into the slope of the lot. The design of the homes can respond to the natural
contours of the lot nicely. For the remaining lots of Wildridge, this is a very reasonably sloped
site. This is not what the town would consider as a steep sloped lot, (no areas with 30 to 40%
grade)
· The goals for the living area is to total 2,600 s.f. to 2,800 s.f. This size is compatible with
adjacent homes in the area. See matrix above.
· The footprint is planned to be around 1600 s.f. in preliminary design schemes home that will
have 2 car garages. Both the homes would propose a footprint of 1900 s.f. to allow for a future
owner to add a 3rd car garages. The goal is to keep the footprints small.
· The buildings are proposed to maximize the width between the buildings, 45’ to the north home
and 35’ from the adjacent existing home on the south. The typical side yard setbacks of 10’ on
either side of the lot demising property line (total of 20’) would be observed. We would more
than conform to the standard setbacks found on typical lots within Wildridge.
Attachmnent A, 1
· Proposed NON-DEVELOPMENT AREA of 3200 s.f. at the rear of the property and at the south
neighbor’s existing tree drip line.
· The proposed lots will include an Envelope of 3300 s.f. in which the building, overhangs, roofs,
and decks are to be kept within. On grade terraces, drives, and walks would be able to extend
beyond the envelope, but not into any non-development area.
We have studied the adjacent properties and see that this lot has a very long street frontage. The
property line length is 240.72’ at the street. This will help in keeping the homes appear to be spaced
out similar to that of other homes on the area.
Creating separate drives would help in giving separate identity to each home.
· The separated drives will allow each home to be able to better sit into the natural topography of
the site since the drive is not being in the control in elevation by the other home. The back of
the south home would create a walk out on the rear of the home. I have created some
calculations for the site work cut and fill for the single drive and the 2 curb cut drive designs.
o The 2 curb cut drive design would have a cut/fill totaling 247 yards of cut
o The single curb cut drive design would have a cut fill totaling 527 yards of cut. Most of
this difference in the fact that the south house is not allowed to be up in elevation and
follow the natural contours in the back. There is also an increase in boulder retaining
required.
· The splitting of the drives allows for a natural surface drainage between the homes to the
existing ditch at the road’s edge. A favorable design from an engineering standpoint.
· The drives can be placed so that there is adequate spacing between drives and similar to that of
typical lot to lot spacing of drives that exist in Wildridge. From the existing drive at Lot 21B,
(2185 Saddle Ridge loop #B) the first drive would be 108’, the second drive would be 95’9’, and
the drive to the existing home at lot 23, (2185 SADDLE RIDGE) is 195’.
· Jeff Manley (Martin Manley architects) has met with the Town Engineer (Justin Hildreth) and the
Town Planner (David McWilliams) on site to review the site lines and engineering concerns. It
was determined that the engineering department would find the 2 curb cut drive design
acceptable with the following conditions:
o It was determined that a 165’ site line to the car approaching from the south should be
maintained. This can be accomplished with the 2 curb cut design.
o The grade on the south side of the drive should be contoured to not have retaining
obscure the sight line to a car exiting the drive. This can be accomplished with the 2 curb
cut design.
o The serviceberry shrubs in the sight line shall be removed. The shrubs on Lot 22 in this
area will be removed to not obscure the drive sight line. This will be completed with the
design. There is also 1 serviceberry on Lot 23 (south neighbor) near the electrical
transformer that shall be removed. We have been in discussions with the Lot 23 Owner,
Matt Asmus, and removal of this shrub is acceptable to him. The letter of approval to
remove the shrub on Lot 23 is attached.
Attachmnent A, 2
From the Development Code 7.16.060 (4)
Review Criteria. The PZC and Town Council shall consider the following criteria as the basis for a recommendation
or decision to rezone a property to PUD overlay, approve a preliminary PUD plan or process a PUD amendment:
(i)
The PUD addresses a unique situation, confers a substantial benefit to the Town and/or incorporates creative site
design such that it achieves the purposes of this Development Code and represents an improvement in quality over
what could have been accomplished through strict application of the otherwise applicable district or development
standards. Such improvements in quality may include, but are not limited to: improvements in open space provision
and access; environmental protection; tree/ vegetation preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads and other
utilities and services; or increased choice of living and housing environments;
· The lot split will create a benefit to the neighborhood in the following manner
o The proposed footprints are split and allow light and air between the homes that would not
be possible with a duplex design. This breaks up the long continuous façade of a duplex
design
o The designs proposed will have smaller footprint that will allow more landscape area and
larger distance between homes.
o The proposed homes will be 2600 to 2800 s.f. in size. This is a size that the current real estate
market is seeking and is another choice than the large duplex product. Single family homes is
desirable in the Wildridge area.
(ii)
The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety and general welfare;
· The lot split will promote public health, safety and welfare by promoting smaller homes that require
less energy to maintain, more light and air/ distance between the homes of the neighborhood, and
more natural landscape
(iii)
The PUD rezoning is consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, the purposes of this Development Code and the
eligibility criteria outlined in Subsection 7.16.060(b);
· The lot split is consistent with the Comp Plan, Dev Code, and Eligibility Criteria. This request is
consistent with other approved lot splits within Wildridge Subdivision
(iv)
Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric, police and fire protection and sewage
and waste disposal, as applicable) will be available to serve the subject property while maintaining adequate levels
of service to existing development;
· The Facilities and Services are unchanged since the density is not being increased
(v)
Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon the
natural environment, including air, water, noise, storm water management, wildlife and vegetation, or such impacts
will be substantially mitigated;
· The lot split will not adversely affect the underlying Zoning. Due to the smaller buildings in lieu of one
larger duplex, the Proposed will improve site water management, air, vegetation, and noise due to the
smaller structures
(vi)
Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon
other property in the vicinity of the subject tract; and
· The Proposed will not adversely affect impact the other properties since the proposed homes are
consistent with other sizes of existing adjacent homes and will provide diversity of housing inventory
Attachmnent A, 3
(vii)
Future uses on the subject tract will be compatible in scale with uses or potential future uses on other properties in
the vicinity of the subject tract.
· The use is compatible with scale of the neighborhood and the residential use.
Thank you,
Jeffrey P Manley AIA
Martin Manley Architects
970-328-1299 (direct)
970-688-0326 (cell)
www.martinmanleyarchitects.com
Attachmnent A, 4
970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject No.:DateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/21/2018 10:51:34 AMA0.0COVER18512177 Saddle Ridge LoopLOT SPLIT SET11-21-18Single Family Residences atWildridge SubdivisionLot 22, Avon CO 816202177 Saddle Ridge Loop
LOT SPLIT SET
Single Family Residences at
Wildridge Subdivision
Lot 22, Avon CO 81620
11-21-18
No.DescriptionDateAttachmnent A, 5
CTV PEDESTAL
TELEPHONE
PEDESTAL
ELECTRIC
TRANSFORMER
FLOWLINE OF
18" C.M.P. 8173.9
8187.6
8176.3
EDGE OF GRAVEL
FOUND No. 5 REBAR
WITH RED PLASTIC CAP
L.S. No. 5447
FOUND No. 5 REBAR
WITH RED PLASTIC CAP
L.S. No. 5447
BUILDING
SETBACK
BUILDING
SETBACK
BUILDING
SETBACK
UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT
(RECEPTION No. 226437)UTI
LI
TY AND DRAI
NAGE EASEMENT(RECEPTI
ON No. 226437)
U TILITY A N D DRA IN A GE EA SEM EN T(REC EPTIO N N o. 226437)SLOPE M
AINTENAN
CE, DRAINAGE AND
SNO
W STORAGE EASEMENT
(RECEPTION No. 226437)
N 49°37'22"E - 114.02'S89°54'56"E - 210.69'S30°46'55"E - 100.81'
LOT 22
0.57 ACRES
ADDRESS: 2177 SADDLE RIDGE LOOP
LOT 21B
LOT 23
LOT 25A
LOT 24B
LOT 22B
12039.0 S.F.
LOT 22A
12877.7 S.F.
8180
819
0
8200
8
2
0
0
8190
8180
84
96
92
96
92
90
94
92
92'6
90
88
86
84
88
86
94
95
90
92
90
92
8894
94
92
88
84'
90
86
84
82
78
78
78
927'-6"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"7'-6"10'-0"approx.
20'-53_
8"23'-0"
25'-8"
23'-0"
VIEWS
BEAVER CREEKMOUNTAINGAME CREEK BOWLRED AND WHIMOUNTAIN1 inch = 10 ft.
( IN FEET )
5
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 10 20
4"
4"
10"
4"
4"
C TV
P
(SEE DETAIL)
VIEWPOINT
T.O. WALL
B.O. WALL
2'-0"8180'
8182'
G
U
E
S
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G95' 9 BET
W
EEN D
RIVE W
AY C
U
RB C
UTS
SURFACE DRAINAGE TO DITCH28' - 4"27'
-
0"
ROUGHLT 55 FEET BETWEEN BUILDINGS
T.O. WALLB.O. WALL
3'-6"
8188' 8184' 6
T.O. WALL
B.O. WALL
3'-0"
8183'
8186'VI
EW LI
NE DI
STANCE
AROUND CORNER
I
S 165 FEET
(TO SOUTH
)
SERVICEBERRY SHRUBS IN
THIS AREA ARE TO BE
REMOVED TO MAINTAIN
SIGHT LINE TO DRIVE
LOT 23 OWNER HAS AGREED TO REMOVE
1 SERVICE BERRY SHRUB (LOCATED
HERE) TO CREATE CLEAR SIGHT LINE TO
DRIVE ENTRANCE (granted 11-20-18)
GRADE IN
THIS AREA
IS LOWERED
TO IMPROVE
SIGHT LINE
TO DRIVE
PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE
ADJACENT HOME CORNER
(20' FROM THIS PROPERTY LINE
view path to Game Creek Bowl3200 S.F. OF PROPOSED NON DEVELOPEMENT AREA
(MAY HAVE LIMITED DISTURBING TO CONNECT TO UTILIES)
44' - 1"
67' - 8"50' - 5"65' - 5 1/2"
65' - 5 1/2"
appox
3'-0".
5 0 ' - 5 "3' - 0"
Total Lot 22
Area: 24916.63 s.f.
Area of no disturbance/natural: 3200 s.f. (undisturbed at back of lot and under south neighbor’s trees)
Lot 22A Lot 22B
Area:12877.7 s.f.Area:12038.5 s.f.
Area of no disturb: 2350 s.f.Area of no disturb: 850 s.f.
Area of no disturbance on lot= 10527.7 s.f.Area of no disturbance on lot= 11188.5 s.f.
Area within envelope: 3300 s.f.Area within envelope: 3300 s.f.970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/21/2018 10:51:35 AMA1.1.2SITE PLAN OPTION 218512177 Saddle Ridge LoopLOT SPLIT SET11-21-18Single Family Residences atWildridge SubdivisionLot 22, Avon CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1/8" = 1'-0"1 A0.0 SITE PLAN 2 CURB CUTS
Attachmnent A, 6
GU
E
S
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
95' 9 BET
W
EEN D
RIVE W
AY C
U
RB C
UTS
SURFACE DRAINAGE TO DITCH28' - 4"27'
-
0"
ROUGHLT 56 FEET BETWEEN BUILDINGS
44' - 5"VIEW LINE DISTANCE ARO UND CO RNER IS 165 FEET (TO SO UTH )SERVICEBERRY SHRUBS IN THIS
AREA ARE TO BE REMOVED TO
MAINTAIN SIGHT LINE TO DRIVE
APPROVAL FROM LOT 23
OWNER TO REMOVE 1
SERRVICE BERRY
SHRUB (LOCATED HERE)
TO CREATE CLEAR
SIGHT LINE TO DRIVE
ENTRANCE WAS
GRANTED
GRADE IN THIS
AREA IS
LOWERED TO
IMPROVE SIGHT
LINE TO DRIVE
50' - 6 1/4"
PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE
ADJACENT HOME CORNER
(20' FROM THIS PROPERTY LINE 970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/21/2018 10:51:40 AMA1.1.3GOOGLE EARTH18512177 Saddle Ridge LoopLOT SPLIT SET11-21-18Single Family Residences atWildridge SubdivisionLot 22, Avon CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1" = 20'-0"1 A0.0 SITE PLAN GOOGLE EARTH VIEW
Attachmnent A, 7
UP
WDWDDW
13' - 6"9' - 6"24' - 5 1/2"
28' - 5 1/2"21' - 0"3' - 0"12' - 0"21' - 4"8' - 2"24' - 0"3' - 0"cubbies
under stair
mechanical platform
open railing
STAIR AND LIGHT WELL
4' - 0"7' - 8"1' - 1"8' - 10 1/2"17' - 10"9' - 4"1' - 10"8' - 3"4' - 4"
A3.0
1
6' - 6"13' - 0 1/2"8' - 11"8' - 6"12' - 6"15' - 0"14' - 4"7' - 0"12' - 9"5' - 5 1/2"5' - 8"36' - 4"10' - 0"13' - 5 1/2"24' - 0"3' - 0"10' - 2 1/2"16' - 0"3' - 4"2' - 0"MASTER
BEDROOM
MASTER
BATH
MASTER
CLOSET
LIVING ROOM
PANTRY
STAIR AND LIGHT WELL
UP
DN
GUEST
BEDROOM KITCHEN
DINING
GUEST
BATH AT GRADE
TERRACE8' - 1 1/2"3' - 11 1/2"5' - 6"2' - 10"12' - 9"4' - 1 1/2"6' - 1"3' - 4"2' - 0"
PANTRY
5' - 4"2' - 0"15' - 0"2' - 6"5' - 6"9' - 5 1/2"15' - 0"21' - 4"13' - 2 1/2"5' - 6"6' - 6"14' - 2 1/2"OVERLOOK TO BELOWSTAIR AND LIGHT WELL
DN
STUDY LOFT
KIDS
BEDROOM 1
KIDS
BEDROOM 2
8' - 8"A3.0
1
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12
3:12970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/21/2018 10:51:42 AMA2.0FLOOR PLANS18512177 Saddle Ridge LoopLOT SPLIT SET11-21-18Single Family Residences atWildridge SubdivisionLot 22, Avon CO 81620True
North
Project
North No.DescriptionDate1/4" = 1'-0"1 A1.0 LOWER LEVEL
1/4" = 1'-0"2 A2.0 MAIN LEVEL
True
North
Project
North
1/4" = 1'-0"3 A3.0 UPPER LEVEL
True
North
Project
North
Area Schedule (Gross Building)
Name Area
Lower Level
Area
587.9 SF
Main Level Area 1446.8 SF
Upper Level
Area
657.1 SF
Grand total: 3 2691.8 SF
1/8" = 1'-0"4 ROOF PLAN
Attachmnent A, 8
A2.0 MAIN LEVEL
8192' -7 3/4"
A3.0 UPPER LEVEL
8202' -11"
Plate Height
8211' -0"
A1.0 LOWER
LEVEL
8182' -6"970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/21/2018 10:51:46 AMA3.0EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS18512177 Saddle Ridge LoopLOT SPLIT SET11-21-18Single Family Residences atWildridge SubdivisionLot 22, Avon CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION
2 3D View 1 3 3D View 2
Attachmnent A, 9
1
Jeff
From:Brandt Marott <Brandt@m6affiliated.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 11:27 AM
To:Jeff Manley; Dave Dantas
Subject:Fwd: Site Plan for Wildridge Lot 22
FYI
Brandt Marott
Direct: 970.331.3164
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jim Horan <DeltaRetired@comcast.net>
Date: November 13, 2018 at 10:48:19 AM MST
To: Brandt Marrot <Brandt@m6affiliated.com>
Subject: Site Plan for Wildridge Lot 22
To Whom it may concern:
My wife and I live in Lot 21B (2165B Saddle Ridge Loop) and have for over 16 years (Avon for
28 years total).
We have received the site plan for Lot 22 and we are ecstatic that something this nice is planned
next door to us. There is nothing we see that would prevent us from giving Mr. Brandt Marrot &
MartinManley Architects our 100% approval.
Any further questions can be directed to my email or cell.
Sincerely,
Jim & “Sam”
Jim Horan & Diane “Sam” Sampson
P.O. Box 7480
2165B Saddle Ridge Loop
Avon, CO 81620
970-845-7922 (H)
970-376-1378 (C)
Attachment B, 1
1
Jeff
From:Matt Asmus <matt@Asmusasmus.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 20, 2018 9:34 PM
To:Brandt Marott
Cc:Jeff
Subject:Re: 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop
Please consider this approval to remove the service berry bush in question.
I don't have a way to draft a letter other than in email on my cell phone until I return to Houston.
Matt
-------- Original message --------
From: Brandt Marott <Brandt@m6affiliated.com>
Date: 11/20/18 8:12 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: Matt Asmus <matt@Asmusasmus.com>
Cc: Jeff <jeff@martinmanleyarchitects.com>
Subject: 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop
Hi Matt
Thanks again for meeting me today; I appreciated your time and the opportunity to get acquainted.
Please see attached drawings we submitted to the Town of Avon. When you have a chance I would greatly
appreciate the following:
1. Letter of support for the project to be sent on 11/21/18 so we can provide to the Town.
a. Attaching Jim’s letter of support.
2. Email confirmation that I may remove the service berry bush adjacent to the transformer on your
property.
Attachment B, 2
2
· Also copying Jeff who can certainly help you on your lot next door. His contact is below.
Jeffrey P Manley AIA
Martin Manley Architects
970-328-1299 (direct)
970-688-0326 (cell)
www.martinmanleyarchitects.com
Thank you,
Brandt Marott
M6 Affiliated, Inc.
Cell: 970.331.3164
Brandt@M6Affiliated.com
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Attachment B, 3
ASMUS Matthew and Charlotte
8707 Crescent Gate Lane
Houston, Texas 77024
(713) 540-3000
November 27, 2018
To Whom It May Concern,
My wife Charlotte and I have owned our home located at 2185 Saddle Ridge Loop, Avon,
Colorado, for 11 years.
We have received and reviewed the site plan for Lot 22 and we give our full support to Mr.
Brandt Marrot & Martin Manley Architects on the project they have planned next door.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my cell at (713) 540-3000.
Warm regards,
Matt Asmus
Attachment B, 4
From: becky@mroveralls.com <becky@mroveralls.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 2:22 PM
To: Matt Pielsticker <mpielsticker@avon.org>
Subject: PUD Amendment Lot 22 Block 1 Wildridge
Matt -
Unfortunately, I just received the notice of the public hearing for PUD amendment Lot 22
Block 1 Wildridge, 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop today due to the notice being sent to an
incorrect address.
Due to this error, I do not believe that I received sufficent notice of the hearing and amble
time to be able to provide public comment in pursuant to provisions of 7.16.020(d) of the
Avon Development Code.
In addition to not being notified appropriately, I have several misgivings about the PUD
Amendment:
1. Concerns of having a footprint of 2 single family homes on 1 lot - leaving less open space
for wildlife movement.
2. Cost - Avon has stated that workforce housing is a priority. However, we know that
building 2 single family homes instead of a duplex will increase the purchase cost of each
home without increasing capacity. This only benefits the developer and not the home buyer
or our workforce. This strategy is not consistent with the Avon Community Housing Plan.
I would appreciate confirmation of the receipt of my email. Sincerely,
Rebecca Larson
2120 Long Spur
Attachment B, 5
Avon City Council
Municipal Building
One Lake Street
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Council Members
My wife, Netty, and our daughters, Abby and Maddie, and myself
have been coming to the Vail Valley for many years to enjoy the
mountains, the skiing and all the beauty of this region. Our hope was
to one day own a home and retire here. My wife and I are in our 60’s,
have worked hard, saved and two years ago we were able to realize our
dream. We purchased a home at 2110 Long Spur in Wildridge. Our
home has a beautiful view and delightful neighbors.
To the east of us is a vacant lot located at 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop.
While we knew that someday that lot would be sold and a home built
on it, we hoped that with the existing development code that we would
still have a view, albeit perhaps a bit different. As we understand that
day is upon us. The lot has been sold and plans are being made to
begin building. Our concern is not with building a home but instead
with the request for an exception to the existing ordinances. Like my
wife and I, Mr Manley knew of the existing ordinances when he
entered into an agreement to by the lot. The only reason to put 2
homes on this lot rather than following the existing code is for the
financial gain of the purchaser. When these dwellings sell he will be
Attachment B, 6
gone and the rest of us will be left to suffer the consequences for years
to come.
As we all know, the view is an important component of not only
why we live in this area but also in computing the market value of our
homes. We paid a premium for this view and to compromise it for the
benefit of an “outside developer” who not only does not live in the area
but whose primary motive is personal financial gain is a difficult pill to
swallow.
Those of us who live next to this lot are the stable long term tax
paying members of the neighborhood. As such, my wife, daughters and
I ask that you deny the request for an amendment.
Sincerely
Thomas, Annette, Abigail and Madelyn Noonan
Attachment B, 7
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 4:13 PM
To: Matt Pielsticker <mpielsticker@avon.org>; Larry Bennett <LSBgeol@aol.com>; Tom Noonan
<noona004@umn.edu>
Subject: re-zoning a duplex property at 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop
Dear Mr. Pielsticker,
I am sure that you are very busy so I decided to send a note instead of calling you.
There is an application to amend the Wildridge PUD at 2177 Saddle Ridge Loop to allow the property to
have two single family houses, instead of the currently allowed duplex zoning.
We three homeowners, who are directly affected by this change, are adamantly opposed to the change.
I have to be honest with you.
I can’t live with a cement wall outside my kitchen window and my living room window. We will be forced
to sell our house.
Mr. Noonan’s family and Joe and Laila’s family are faced with the same situation. These are our only
two windows to the outside world.
Larry Bennett and I would like to meet with you for 15 minutes on December 13 or 14 to discuss our
concerns. Is that possible?
Some of our concerns are:
We are unclear if this is a re-zoning application. Can the builder re-zone, just like that? Mr. Manley did
not draw up plans for a duplex, so he must think that he can. We already live here. Do we three
homeowners have the right to say no?
There are no other single family three story homes built on duplex lots near us. If you approve this
application, wouldn’t other builders ask for the same amendment so they could make more money?
I took pictures of Saddle Ridge Loop at the blind curve right where Mr. Manley wants to put a driveway.
The cars coming down the hill on Saddle Ridge Loop would never see cars exiting the new driveway. I
want to show you the pictures. Also, I took pictures of the lot from the street. It will show you how small
the lot size is and how close to our three properties the two three story buildings would be.
We all know that this situation is about financial gain for the builder and homeowner. It does nothing for
the character of the community.
Thank you for your time, Mr. Pielsticker.
I will wait to hear back from you.
Sincerely,
Larry Bennett
Linda Billera
2110 Long Spur, Avon
720-363-0990
Attachment B, 8
CTV PEDESTAL
TELEPHONE
PEDESTAL
ELECTRIC
TRANSFORMER
FLOWLINE OF
18" C.M.P. 8173.9
8187.6
8176.3
EDGE OF GRAVEL
FOUND No. 5 REBAR
WITH RED PLASTIC CAP
L.S. No. 5447
FOUND No. 5 REBAR
WITH RED PLASTIC CAP
L.S. No. 5447
BUILDING
SETBACK
BUILDING
SETBACK
BUILDING
SETBACK
UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT
(RECEPTION No. 226437)UTI
LI
TY AND DRAI
NAGE EASEMENT(RECEPTI
ON No. 226437)
U TILITY A N D DRA IN A GE EA SEM EN T(REC EPTIO N N o. 226437)SLOPE M
AINTENAN
CE, DRAINAGE AND
SNO
W STORAGE EASEMENT
(RECEPTION No. 226437)
N 49°37'22"E - 114.02'S89°54'56"E - 210.69'S30°46'55"E - 100.81'
LOT 22
0.57 ACRES
ADDRESS: 2177 SADDLE RIDGE LOOP
LOT 21B
LOT 23
LOT 25A
LOT 24B
LOT 22B
12039.0 S.F.
LOT 22A
12877.7 S.F.
8180
819
0
8200
8
2
0
0
8190
8180
84
96
92
96
92
90
94
92
92'6
90
88
86
84
88
86
94
95
90
92
90
92
8894
94
92
88
84'
90
86
84
82
78
78
78
927'-6"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"7'-6"10'-0"approx.
20'-53_
8"23'-0"
25'-8"
23'-0"
VIEWS
BEAVER CREEKMOUNTAINGAME CREEK BOWLRED AND WHIMOUNTAIN1 inch = 10 ft.
( IN FEET )
5
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 10 20
4"
4"
1 0"
4"
4"
C TV
P
(SEE DETAIL)
VIEWPOINT
T.O. WALL
B.O. WALL
2'-0"8180'
8182'
G
U
E
S
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G95' 9 BET
W
EEN D
RIVE W
AY C
U
RB C
UTS
SURFACE DRAINAGE TO DITCH28' - 4"27'
-
0"
ROUGHLT 55 FEET BETWEEN BUILDINGS
T.O. WALLB.O. WALL
3'-6"
8188' 8184' 6
T.O. WALL
B.O. WALL
3'-0"
8183'
8186'VI
EW LI
NE DI
STANCE
AROUND CORNER
I
S 165 FEET
(TO SOUTH
)
SERVICEBERRY SHRUBS IN
THIS AREA ARE TO BE
REMOVED TO MAINTAIN
SIGHT LINE TO DRIVE
LOT 23 OWNER HAS AGREED TO REMOVE
1 SERVICE BERRY SHRUB (LOCATED
HERE) TO CREATE CLEAR SIGHT LINE TO
DRIVE ENTRANCE (granted 11-20-18)
GRADE IN
THIS AREA
IS LOWERED
TO IMPROVE
SIGHT LINE
TO DRIVE
PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE
ADJACENT HOME CORNER
(20' FROM THIS PROPERTY LINE
view path to Game Creek Bowl3200 S.F. OF PROPOSED NON DEVELOPEMENT AREA
(MAY HAVE LIMITED DISTURBING TO CONNECT TO UTILIES)
44' - 1"
67' - 8"50' - 5"65' - 5 1/2"
65' - 5 1/2"
appox
3'-0".
5 0 ' - 5 "3' - 0"
Total Lot 22
Area: 24916.63 s.f.
Area of no disturbance/natural: 3200 s.f. (undisturbed at back of lot and under south neighbor’s trees)
Lot 22A Lot 22B
Area:12877.7 s.f.Area:12038.5 s.f.
Area of no disturb: 2350 s.f.Area of no disturb: 850 s.f.
Area of no disturbance on lot= 10527.7 s.f.Area of no disturbance on lot= 11188.5 s.f.
Area within envelope: 3300 s.f.Area within envelope: 3300 s.f.970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/30/2018 12:29:16 PMA1.1.2SITE PLAN OPTION 218512177 Saddle Ridge LoopLOT SPLIT SET11-28-18Single Family Residences atWildridge SubdivisionLot 22, Avon CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1/8" = 1'-0"1 A0.0 SITE PLAN 2 CURB CUTS
Attachment C
GU
E
S
T
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
95' 9 BET
W
EEN D
RIVE W
AY C
U
RB C
UTS
SURFACE DRAINAGE TO DITCH28' - 4"27'
-
0"
ROUGHLT 56 FEET BETWEEN BUILDINGS
44' - 5"VIEW LINE DISTANCE ARO UND CO RNER IS 165 FEET (TO SO UTH )SERVICEBERRY SHRUBS IN THIS
AREA ARE TO BE REMOVED TO
MAINTAIN SIGHT LINE TO DRIVE
APPROVAL FROM LOT 23
OWNER TO REMOVE 1
SERRVICE BERRY
SHRUB (LOCATED HERE)
TO CREATE CLEAR
SIGHT LINE TO DRIVE
ENTRANCE WAS
GRANTED
GRADE IN THIS
AREA IS
LOWERED TO
IMPROVE SIGHT
LINE TO DRIVE
50' - 6 1/4"
PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE
ADJACENT HOME CORNER
(20' FROM THIS PROPERTY LINE 970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/30/2018 12:29:22 PMA1.1.3GOOGLE EARTH18512177 Saddle Ridge LoopLOT SPLIT SET11-28-18Single Family Residences atWildridge SubdivisionLot 22, Avon CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1" = 20'-0"1 A0.0 SITE PLAN GOOGLE EARTH VIEW
Attachment C
ADJACENT HOME CORNER
(20' FROM THIS PROPERTY LINE 970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/30/2018 12:29:22 PMA1.1.4GOOGLE WITH DUPLEX18512177 Saddle Ridge LoopLOT SPLIT SET11-28-18Single Family Residences atWildridge SubdivisionLot 22, Avon CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1" = 20'-0"1
A0.0 SITE PLAN GOOGLE EARTH with
duplex
Attachment C
ADJACENT HOME CORNER
(20' FROM THIS PROPERTY LINE
2 5 ' - 0 ".2 5 ' - 0 "5 0 ' - 0 "45' - 8"
34' - 6 3/16"VIEW TO RED AND WHITEVIEW TO GAME CREEK
8196'
elev at corner 8192'6"elev at proposed8194'elev at duplex
hatched area shows proposed non-disturb zoneLetter of supportL e tte r o f s u p p o rt970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION11/30/2018 12:29:22 PMA1.1.5GOGGLE with both duplex and SFR18512177 Saddle Ridge LoopLOT SPLIT SET11-28-18Single Family Residences atWildridge SubdivisionLot 22, Avon CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1" = 20'-0"1
A0.0 SITE PLAN GOOGLE EARTH with
duplex AND SINGLE FAMILY OVERLAY
Attachment C
Code Text Amendments Work Session
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: David McWilliams, Town Planner
Meeting Date: December 18, 2018
Topic: Code Text Amendment Work Session
SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
Town staff has several Code Text Amendment proposals for a work session. Included within
them are:
• Alternative Equivalent Compliance (Attachment B, page 1). Staff was directed to tie the
AEC process back to more tangible public benefits.
• Employee Housing Mitigation (Attachment B, page 3). Staff was directed, through the
Employee Housing Plan, to determine an approach for Inclusionary Zoning. Included as
Attachment A are selections from the Housing Plan that staff used to inform the process.
• Development Bonus (Attachment B, page 7). The Development Bonus section was
originally proposed in 2009 as part of the Municipal Code overhaul. Staff decided to
include it in this section as a possible appropriate method to gain additional employee
housing or other public benefits when applicants need relief or additions from the Avon
Municipal Code.
• Short-term Rentals (Attachment B, page 11). Staff was directed to determine new
regulations that would create a more formal application and compliance process for
homeowners. PZC should consider this more of a rough draft than the other drafts.
Staff encourages a robust discussion about these proposals, and if there are any different ways of
achieving the Town’s goals.
ATTACHMENTS
(A) Sections from Avon Housing Plan
(B) Code Text Amendments for review
(C) Summary of Inclusionary Zoning Practices in Colorado Communities – Chafee County
(D) Sections from CAST Vacation Home Rentals Report
Attachment A pg. 1
The Comprehensive Plan:
• Achieve a diverse range of housing densities, styles, and types, including rental
and for sale, to serve all segments of the population.
• Coordinate with neighboring communities to provide an attainable housing
program that incorporates both rental and ownership opportunities, affordable for
local working families.
Goals and Objectives of this Housing Plan are as follows:
• Focus on increasing deed restricted homeownership opportunities for
households making equivalent of 140% or less of the Area Median Income -
$430,000 for a household of three people in 2018.
• Grow the inventory of homeownership and “missing middle” inventory, in place of
additional rental housing stock, to create a more balanced portfolio with a long-
term goal of 50% rental, 50% ownership.
• When considering new rental housing, prioritize price point, quality and amenities
attractive to “step up” renters and seniors looking to downsize, focusing on the
80-120% AMI level.
• Stabilize or increase the percentage of year-round residents; currently 55% of all
dwelling units in Avon are occupied by year-round residents.
• Stabilize or increase the percentage of Eagle County working residents Avon.
• Seek to add at deed restricted units to the inventory in the short term.
• Strengthen regional partnerships with other communities and entities (i.e. Habitat
for Humanity, other municipalities, Eagle County) to make projects happen.
• As sites redevelop, strive for “no net loss” of units in the 80-120% AMI range, and
when possible, increase housing serving the local year-round population.
• Re-evaluate goals and objectives on an annual basis, including the ongoing
monitoring of new projects and housing stock in the mid-valley; appendices may
be updated by Resolution.
Strengths and Assets
• An inventory of 670 price-controlled housing units, 63 of which are deed
restricted for sale units that were a result of successful PUD negotiations;
Policy
• Update mitigation/linkage policies to be more proactive in addressing housing
needs. Current policies are limited to very narrowly defined locations and
development requests, and the current mitigation rate is low compared with peer
communities.
• Consider implementing an inclusionary housing policy. Inclusionary housing
was considered in the 2010 code update, but was not adopted at that time.
Inclusionary housing is a tool to create housing affordable to locals. It is
recommended to look at inclusionary housing and mitigation/linkage at the same
time, to better understand how the two tools complement each other, support
Attachment A pg. 2
policy goals, and maintain a level playing field for commercial and residential
development.
Inclusionary
Housing
A percentage of residential units in new
subdivisions/PUDs are workforce housing. Market
homes support workforce units. Only effective if new
subdivisions/PUDs are developed/ redeveloped.
Carbondale, Eagle,
Eagle County, San
Miguel County
Linkage/Mitigation Requiring new residential and/or commercial
development to contribute to workforce housing
relative to demand generated by the new
construction. For residential, mitigation rate often
increases with house size, and deed restricted units
are typically exempt. Fees in lieu provides revenue
stream that fluctuates with building activity.
Documented relationship between fee and impact
required.
Telluride, Aspen, Mt.
Crested Butte
Attachment B, 1
7.16.120 - Alternative equivalent compliance.
Alternative equivalent compliance is a procedure that allows development to meet the intent of the
design-related provisions of this Chapter through an alternative design. It is not a general waiver or
weakening of regulations; rather, this application procedure permits a site-specific plan that is equal to or
better than the strict application of a design standard specified in this Development Code. This procedure
is not intended as a substitute for a variance or administrative modification or a vehicle for relief from
standards in this Chapter. Alternative compliance shall apply only to the specific site for which it is
requested and does not establish a precedent for assured approval of other requests.
(a) Applicability. A request for alternative equivalent compliance shall be made concurrently with a site-
specific application for a procedure identified in this Chapter. The alternative equivalent compliance
procedure shall be available only for the following sections of this Development Code:
(1) Section 7.20.100, Employee Housing Mitigation;
(2) Section 7.28.040, Mobility and Connectivity;
(3) Section 7.28.050, Landscaping;
(4) Section 7.28.060, Screening;
(5) Section 7.28.070, Retaining Walls;
(6) Section 7.28.080, Fences;
(7) Section 7.28.090, Design Standards; and
(8) Section 7.32.040, Paved Trail Design.
(b) Review Procedures. Applications for alternative equivalent compliance shall be processed
concurrently with the underlying development application for which alternative equivalent compliance
with the applicable design standards is desired and shall follow the procedures for such underlying
development application. Applications for alternative equivalent compliance may be initiated by the
owner of property for which alternative equivalent compliance is desired.
(c) Review Authority. The review authority shall be the review authority as set forth for the underlying
development application. The PZC shall review all alternative equivalent compliance applications
that have a concurrent minor development plan application.
(d) Review Criteria. The review authority shall use the following review criteria as the basis for a
decision on an application for alternative equivalent compliance:
(1) The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or development standard to
the same or better degree than the subject standard;
(2) The proposed alternative achieves the Goals, and Policies, and District Planning Principles of
the Avon Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard;
(3) The proposed alternative design will not negatively impact public health and safety;
(3) The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better
than compliance with the subject standard; and
(4) The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur
through compliance with the specific requirements of this Title.; and
(5) The proposed alternative results in one or more of the following public benefits that exceed the
requirements of the subject standards in this Code and any other local, state, or federal laws
and is sufficient to compensate for the requested deviation from standards:
i. Deed-restricted workforce and/or affordable housing;
ii. Redevelopment of a brownfield site;
Attachment B, 2
iii. Permanent conservation of natural areas, riparian areas, lands, or existing trees;
iv. Protection against flood damage;
v. Cultural or historic facilities deeded to the Town, or qualified not-for-profit agencies, or
otherwise preserved;
vi. Dedication of land for transportation facilities;
vii. Protection of streams by providing higher water quality standards or additional riparian
buffers;
viii. Planting of trees, onsite or other suitable sites, as determined by the PZC;
ix. Reduction in outdoor water use;
x. Support for the implementation of the Avon Climate Action Plan; and
xi. Other benefits approved by the PZC.
(e) Conditions. The reviewing authority may recommend or impose conditions on an approval for
alternative equivalent compliance provided that such conditions are related to ensuring the
performance of the alternative equivalent compliance to meet or exceed the subject standard. Such
conditions may include performance guarantees, required timeframes or the ability to revoke an
approval for alternative equivalent compliance.
(f) Effect of Approval. Alternative equivalent compliance shall apply only to the specific site for which it
is requested and shall not establish a precedent for approval of other requests.
Attachment B, 3
7.20.100 - Employee housing mitigation.
(a) Applicability.
The standards of this Section shall apply to new multi-family (3 or more units), commercial,
accommodation units, and other non-residential development within the Town of Avon. Governmental and
non-profit entities must also adhere to these standards.
(b) Exemptions.
(1) Redevelopment of Pre-Existing Use and Change in Use.
Redevelopment or remodeling of an existing use or the change from one use to another is
exempt from the requirements of this Section, provided such activity does not create additional
employment generation as determined by Table 7.20-14, below. Only the uses and floor areas
that existed prior to the redevelopment or remodeling shall be exempt from the requirements of
this Section. Any new floor area or unit or any change in use which creates additional employee
generation as determined by Table 7.20-14 shall be subject to the provisions of this Section.
(2) Vested Property Rights are exempted from the provisions of this Section.
(c) When applicable, employee housing mitigation shall be provided in accordance with these
standards:
To determine the number of employee housing units that must be provided, the following formulas
shall be used:
Table 7.20-14
Employee Housing Mitigation Formulas
Factor Calculation
Commercial
Size of development Leasable square feet
Jobs generated 2.8 per 1,000 sq. ft. Rate x sq. ft./1,000
Employees generated 1.2 jobs per employee Jobs generated/1.2
Households generated 1.8 employees per unit Employees generated/1.8
Units required 10% mitigation Households generated x 10%
Lodging and Property Management
Size of development # of rooms or # of units
Jobs generated
Lodge/hotel - # of rooms x 0.8
0.8/ room;
Prop. management - # of units x 0.4
0.4/ unit
Employees generated 1.2 jobs per employee Jobs generated/ 1.2
Households generated 1.8 employees per unit Employees generated/ 1.8
Attachment B, 4
Units required 10% mitigation Households generated x 10%
Residential
Size of development # of Dwelling Units
Jobs generated .33 per dwelling unit # of units x 0.33
Employees generated 1.2 jobs per employee Jobs generated/1.2
Households generated 1.8 employees per unit Employees generated/1.8
Units required 10% mitigation Households generated x 10%
Note: The required employee housing mitigation shall be rounded to the nearest whole
number.
(d) Methods of Housing Mitigation.
General Requirements. All units shall be placed under a deed restriction, administered by the Valley Home
Store, that limits occupancy or ownership of units to Eagle County residents or workers.
For any of the following Housing Mitigation Methods, all proposed unit(s) shall comply with the minimum size
requirements shown in table 7.20-15.
TABLE 7.20-15
Minimum Size of Housing Units
Type Minimum Size Of Unit
(SF)
Number Of
Employees
Housed
Studio 500 1.25
1 bedroom 613 1.75
2 bedroom 788 2.25
3 or more bedroom 1,225 3.5
No Credit Given: If the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the proposed unit(s) is in excess of the
minimum required gross residential floor area (GRFA), the additional gross residential floor area (GRFA)
shall not be eligible for use as any form of future credit or for the commercial linkage or inclusionary zoning
employee housing mitigation.
(1) Construction of unit(s) on the site on which the development is proposed.
(2) Construction of deed restricted unit(s) within the Town of Avon, provided such land, site or
structure has not been previously deed-restricted to employee or affordable housing by any party.
(3) Construction of unit(s) outside the Town of Avon but within the Eagle Valley, provided such land,
site or structure has not been previously deed-restricted to employee or affordable housing by
any party. Prior to construction of such unit(s), consent of the relevant jurisdiction or
homeowner’s association (if required) to placement of a deed restriction on the unit(s) must be
obtained, in addition to any required land use approvals.
(4) Deed restricting existing free market unit(s) within the Town or the Eagle Valley.
i. As a condition of approval when the deed restriction of existing free market unit(s) is
proposed, Applicants must obtain the approval of The Town for the specific unit(s) to be
deed restricted. Applicants must demonstrate to the satisfaction of The Town that (a) the
long-term affordability of the proposed unit(s) is adequately protected, considering issues
including but not limited to long term maintenance and homeowner’s assessments; and
Attachment B, 5
(b) the affected property does not prohibit the type of housing proposed. The Town may
request additional information about the proposed unit(s) as reasonable to make such a
determination. Such approval may contain provisions to ensure that any unit(s) so
restricted meets long term standards for maintenance and affordability.
ii. Prior to deed restriction of such unit(s) when located outside the Town, consent of the
relevant jurisdiction or homeowner’s association (if required) to placement of a deed
restriction on the unit(s) must be obtained, in addition to any required land use approvals.
(5) Fees in lieu as defined by Town Council resolution updated every two years, not to exceed fifty
percent (50%) of the total affordable housing requirement, subject to the following requirements:
i. Time of Payment and Use of Funds. Payment of the in-lieu fee shall be made to the
Town prior to the issuance of any building permits for the free market portion of the
development.
ii. Interest Bearing Account. The Town shall transfer the funds to an interest-bearing
account.
iii. Authorized Uses of Fees. The funds, and any interest accrued, shall be used only for the
purpose of planning for, subsidizing or developing affordable and employee housing.
iv. Refund of Fees.
(A) Seven Year Limit. Fees collected pursuant to this section may be returned to the
then present owner or property for which a fee was paid, if the fees have not been spent
within seven (7) years from the date fees were paid, unless the Town Council shall have
earmarked the funds for expenditure on a specific project, in which case the Town
Council may extend the time period by up to three (3) more years.
(B) Written Request. To obtain the refund, the present owner must submit a written
request to the Director within one (1) year following the end of the seventh (7th) year
from the date payment was received.
(C) Payments Determined. For the purpose of this section, payments collected shall
be deemed spent on the basis that the first payment shall be the first payment out.
(e) Housing Mitigation Plan Required.
The Housing Mitigation Plan shall include the following:
(1) Calculation and Method. The calculation of, and method by which housing is to be provided, in
compliance with Table 7.20-14 and Section 7.20.100(d).
(2) Unit Descriptions. If deed restricted housing units are to be developed, a site plan and building
floor plans (if applicable), illustrating the number of units proposed, their location, the number of
bedrooms, Gross Floor Area of each unit, and the rental/sale mix of the development.
(3) Timing of Review/Amendments. The Housing Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to and approved
by the Director prior to, or concurrent with, application to the Town for the free market portion of
the initial development plan. Review and approval of plans by the Town for construction of
affordable housing shall be prior to, or concurrent with, the free market portion of the
development plan. Any amendment to the Housing Mitigation Plan shall require Director approval.
Attachment B, 6
(f) Certification of Action. The Director, or its designee, shall certify the approval, approval with conditions,
or denial of the Housing Mitigation Plan, or of an amendment thereto. Such approval, approval with
conditions, or denial shall be based on compliance with the provisions of this Division, unless an
exception is granted by variance.
(g) Appeal. Upon final approval or denial of the Housing Mitigation Plan by the Director an appeal to Town
Council may be filed pursuant to Section 7.16.160 - Appeal.
(2) Employee housing units shall be located on-site. The applicant may propose alternatives to on-
site employee housing mitigation in accordance with the alternative equivalent compliance
process set forth in Section 7.16.120. When considering proposals for off-site employee
housing, preference shall be given to locations closer to the applicant's property, locations in the
Town and locations which are served by mass transit.
(3) Employee housing units shall be owned by the owner of the commercial space for which the
employee housing units serve and shall be used exclusively by employees of such commercial
space; or employee housing units shall be offered for sale subject to a deed restriction that
restricts the appreciation of price and which restricts eligible buyers and renters in accordance
with the form of price controlled housing deed restriction adopted by the Town. Applicants may
voluntarily propose to meet the employee housing units with rent controlled units through the
alternative equivalent compliance process.
(4) Employee housing mitigation shall be satisfied by providing one (1) residential studio unit, one
(1) bedroom in a residential unit or any combination thereof, for each required employee
housing unit of mitigation. The minimum size for a studio unit shall be five hundred (500) square
feet and the minimum size for a one-bedroom residential unit shall be seven hundred fifty (750)
square feet.
Attachment B, 7
7.20.110 Development Bonus
Definitions. For this section:
Development Bonus means an incentive-based tool that permits a project increased density, lot coverage
(for the Town Center District), building height, reduced parking minimums, reduced building permit fees,
reduced landscape area, or landscape unit requirements; in exchange for helping the community achieve
the public policy goals as defined below.
Development Bonus Type means the offer provided by the proposal for consideration by the review
authority that corresponds to one of the listed in section (e), below.
(a) Purpose. Development Bonuses may be awarded for proposed development projects in the Town
Center, Mixed-Use Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Residential High-Density zone
districts where the application meets Town goals and exceeds minimum development standards and
requirements. A Development Bonus may be allowed where the negative impacts of such allowance
on the public or on adjacent property owners do not outweigh the benefits to the public. The public
benefits identified in this section are related to promoting the viability and functionality of higher
density and more intense site development.
(b) Procedures. An application for a Development Bonus shall be submitted concurrently with the
principle application for development of the property and shall follow the review procedures, notice
requirements, and hearing requirements of the underlying development application. A public hearing
and recommendation by PZC, followed by a public hearing by Town Council is required before the
Town Council takes action on any application for a Development Bonus. A Development Bonus shall
only be effective and binding on the Town if stated in a Development Agreement which contains
provisions stating that the Development Bonus is contingent upon the performance and completion by
the applicant property owner of any public facilities, public improvements and/or conveyance of a
property interest for public facilities or improvements offered for the Development Bonus.
(c) Submittal Requirements. In addition to the requirements of the principle development application
and application submittal requirements required in this Code, the Applicant shall submit the following
additional materials when requesting a Development Bonus:
(1) A narrative describing the nature and extent of the proposed Development Bonus and
statement describing why the Applicant believes the requested Development Bonus meets
the criteria of Section 7.28, Development Standards and any other applicable standards. The
narrative shall also describe which Development Bonus Type is being proposed and how it
benefits the public and promotes or implements the Avon Comprehensive Plan and the
purposes stated in this Development Code.
(2) For applications which propose an increase in building height or lot coverage:
(i) A solar resource analysis depicting the impact to surrounding property owners and public
right-of-ways. The solar resource analysis shall also include analysis of shade and
potential ice formation for pedestrian sidewalks, plazas, and routes.
(ii) Architectural renderings for each side of the proposed structure which depict the impact
to views from adjacent properties and public right-of-ways and three-dimensional
modeling which demonstrates the height, bulk, view impacts and shading created by the
proposed building in relationship to other structures, public areas and right-of-way.
Attachment B, 8
(3) For proposals which increase density or lot coverage, an analysis of the additional impacts to
public infrastructure and services, including but not limited to: additional impacts to streets,
parks, water, water rights, sewer, public utilities, and schools.
(d) Criteria. The following criteria for specific public benefits shall be considered when evaluating
Development Bonuses:
(1) General Criteria.
(i) Absolute Maximum. The absolute cumulative maximum potential Development Bonus
shall be a variation of 20% from the standard required in the development code.
(ii) A reduction of building fees of up to 20% may be allowed.
(iii) Cumulative Development Bonuses. Subject to the absolute maximum for Development
Bonuses stated in sub-sections (i.) and (ii.) above, multiple Development Bonuses may
be awarded by the Town Council and may be applied cumulatively to a property.
(iv) Additional Water Rights Dedication. Additional water rights shall be dedicated for any
Development Bonus which increases the water consumption for the property and such
additional water rights dedication shall not be considered as a dedication of surplus
water right as defined in Development Review Type 6, below.
(v) Council Review and Approval. Approval of a Development Bonus, if any, shall be
determined by Town Council in the Town Council’s discretion after considering the
Review Criteria. Approval of a Development Bonus shall be by ordinance and shall be
documented in a development agreement.
(2) Review Criteria. The PZC and Town Council shall consider the following criteria as the basis
for a recommendation or decision for a Development Bonus proposal.
(i) Exceed Minimum Standards of one or more of the Development Bonus Types. A
Development Bonus may only be considered and awarded where the Development
Bonus Type exceeds the minimum requirements established elsewhere in the Town
Code for a development.
(ii) Promote Town Goals and Policies. The public benefits proposed by the Development
Bonus Type shall generally promote or implement the goals or policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and purposes stated in this Development Code.
(iii) Payment-in-Lieu. For all Development Bonus Types, where an on-site contribution or
land dedication is not practical or appropriate, the Town Council may consider a cash
contribution towards such facility or improvement by a payment-in-lieu of dedication.
The amount of the payment-in-lieu shall be calculated by considering current and
projected real estate values and construction costs. The amount of a payment-in-lieu
should be the equivalent value of an on-site dedication considering the additional
administrative, transaction, financing and timeframe costs associated with properly
utilizing cash proceeds.
(iv) Mitigation of Impacts. The reviewing authority may require an analysis and may require
mitigation of the additional impacts of a Development Bonus on all public facilities,
infrastructure, and services which serve the property, including but not limited to public
infrastructure, streets, additional water rights required to serve the development, fire
protection, ambulance services, schools, parks, and recreation. In addition, where a
Development Bonus may result in negative impacts to adjacent or nearby properties or
Attachment B, 9
impacts to the general public, the Town may require mitigation of such impacts as a
condition to granting the Development Bonus.
(v) Location and Design. The location and design of any contribution towards public
parking, transit, pedestrian enhancement, streetscape improvement or civic facility shall
be in conformance with the Town of Avon’s Comprehensive Plan and other applicable
plans and regulations of the Town, shall be acceptable to the Town taking into
consideration functionality, current and projected demand, and long term maintenance
and operation costs, and shall include such legal documents as are deemed necessary
and acceptable to the Town.
(e) Development Bonus Types
(1) Housing. A Development Bonus may be awarded where affordable or deed restricted
housing is proposed that meets the following criteria:
(i) At least 50% of residential density shall include for-sale residential units with a deed
restriction limiting the use and ownership of the property to full-time residential use as
the principal residence of the owner and without restriction on the price of the initial sale
or subsequent resale; or,
(ii) At least 25% of residential density shall include for-sale residential units limiting the use
and ownership of the property to full-time residential use, restricting the appreciation on
resale price of the residence, and requiring an initial sales price which is affordable for a
qualified buyer earning up to 140% of area median income; or,
(iii) Payment-in-lieu of providing affordable housing based upon existing real estate values,
market conditions, market trends, the anticipated timeframe to utilize funds to secure
and provide housing, transactional costs and administrative costs for the Town to secure
and providing housing, as such amounts are determined by the Town; or,
(iv) Any combination of standards i, ii and iii.
(2) LEED Certification or similar certification demonstrating high building efficiency
performance. A Development Bonus of may be awarded for certification.
(3) Public Parking or Transit Contribution. A Development Bonus may be awarded for
contributions towards public parking and/or transit.
(4) Pedestrian Enhancement. The following criteria shall be considered for Development
Bonuses for pedestrian enhancements:
(i) Off-site pedestrian enhancements shall be no further than 2,500 feet (as measured by
the most direct existing or planned pedestrian routes) from the property boundary of the
development.
(ii) On-site pedestrian enhancements shall be open to the general public and shall be
owned and maintained by the property owner or an owners’ association.
(5) Streetscape Enhancement. A Development Bonus may be awarded for streetscape
enhancements. Streetscape enhancements may include plazas, courtyards, fountains,
public art, benches, tables, kiosks, pocket parks, play areas and other enhancements to
public pedestrian areas. The following criteria shall be considered for Development
Bonuses for Streetscape Enhancements:
Attachment B, 10
(i) Streetscape enhancement shall be no further away than 1,500 feet from the property
boundary.
(ii) On-site streetscape enhancements shall be open to the general public and shall be
owned and maintained by the property owner or an owners’ association.
(6) Civic Facility. A Development Bonus may be awarded for the provision of land or
improvements for civic facilities. Civic facilities may include a library, health clinic,
municipal facilities, performing arts venues, or other facilities which are open to the general
public and promote the health, safety, welfare or culture of the Avon community. The
following criteria shall be considered for Development Bonuses for civic facilities:
(i) The civic facility shall be located on-site or, if off-site, shall be within a reasonable
proximity of the property to benefit the property.
(7) Water Rights Dedication. A Development Bonus may be awarded for the provision of
surplus water rights which exceeds the water rights dedication required to serve the
property.
Attachment B, 11
7.20.090 - Overlay districts.
(a) Short Term Rental Overlay - STRO.
(1) Intention. The Short Term Rental Overlay (STRO) zone district is intended to allow short term
rentals of properties, including but not limited to accommodation, apartments, bed and breakfast,
condominium, hotel, lodge, motel and residential properties for periods fewer than thirty (30) days
subject to the provisions of this Chapter. The STRO zone district shall be an overlay zone district
which shall apply to allow short term rentals of properties. Properties in the STRO zone district
shall otherwise be subject to all requirements of the underlying zone district.
(2) Allowed Use. The following uses shall be permitted in the STRO District:
(i) The uses permitted in the underlying zone district or planned unit development (PUD).
(ii) Short term rental, except that short term rental use shall not be permitted for any residential
unit which is deed restricted for affordable housing, long term residential use, primary
residential use or full time residential use.
(3) Short Term Rental. For the purpose of this Chapter, short term rental shall mean the rental of
property for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days.
(43) Development Standards. The developments standards within this overlay zone district are
regulated by the underlying zone district. Licensing of Short-Term rental properties is governed
by 5.XXX.
(b4) Planned Unit Development. All PUD zone districts shall comply to the dimensional and
development standards as well as the review processes and criteria outlined in Section 7.16.060,
Planned Unit Developments.
(5) Sales and Public Accommodations Tax Licenseing. Any property owner who leases or rents
property in the STRO District shall obtain a sales tax license in accordance with Chapter 3.08
and a public accommodations tax short-term rental license in accordance with Chapter 3.28. The
failure to obtain proper licensing a sales tax license or public accommodations tax license prior to
using property for short term rental in the STRO shall be a violation and subject to penalties as
described in Title 3.
(6) This chapter shall not supersede or affect any private conditions, covenants or restrictions
applicable to a short-term rental property.
(7) If the proposed short-term rental property is located within a duplex, the application shall include
a copy of a written notice provided to the last known address of the record owner of the adjoining
residential dwelling unit. The written notice shall include a copy of the completed application, and
shall be sent by first-class United States mail at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the
application.
(8) No license shall be issued without an affidavit, signed by the owner or designee under penalty of
perjury, certifying that the short-term rental property is in habitable condition and complies with
the health and safety standards set forth in section 3.XXX(7) of this chapter. Within thirty (30)
days of receipt of a complete application for a short-term rental license, if the Director finds that
the application complies with this chapter, the Director shall issue a short-term rental license. The
license shall be issued in the name of the owner or designee, and shall not be transferable.
(9) Local Agent Required.
Each owner shall appoint a natural person or property management firm located within a sixty
(60) minute distance of the short-term rental property that is available at all times for the duration
Attachment B, 12
of rental occupation, to serve as the local agent for the short-term rental property. The owner
shall notify the Finance Director or designee in writing of the appointment of a local agent within
five (5) days of such appointment or modification of any such appointment.
(10) Health and Safety Standards.
(i) Each short-term rental property shall comply with all of the following standards, at a
minimum, at all times while the property is being leased:
(A) Buildings, structures or rooms shall not be used for purposes other than those for
which they were designed or intended.
(B) Roofs, floors, walls, foundations, ceilings, stairs, handrails, guardrails, doors,
porches, all other structural components and all appurtenances thereto shall be
capable of resisting any and all forces and loads to which they may be normally
subjected, and shall be kept in sound condition and in good repair.
(11) Smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors and fire extinguishers shall be installed and
operable, and all wood-burning fireplaces and stoves shall be cleaned on an annual basis.
(12) An operable toilet, sink, and either a bathtub or shower shall be located within the same building,
and every room containing a toilet or bathtub/shower shall be completely enclosed by walls, doors,
or windows that will afford sufficient privacy.
(13) There shall be a sufficient number of trash receptacles to accommodate all trash generated by
those occupying the short-term rental property, and all receptacles shall comply with Chapter 8.12
of the Avon Municipal Code.
(14) Occupancy of a short-term rental property shall comply with Chapter 7.20.090 of the Avon
Municipal Code.
(15) The use of portable outdoor fireplaces is prohibited.
(16) Electrical panels shall be clearly labeled.
(17) All pets shall be subject to Title 6 of the Avon Municipal Code.
(18) Parking.
Parking shall comply with all applicable provisions of Avon Municipal Code. All vehicles shall be
parked in designated parking areas, and parking is prohibited in any landscaped area.
(19) Signage.
A sign shall be located conspicuously inside the short-term rental property. The sign shall include
the local agent's current contact information, the street address of the short-term rental property
and the short-term rental license number.
(20) Notice.
Any notice required by this chapter to be given to an owner is sufficient if sent by first-class mail to
the address provided by the owner on the most recent license or renewal application. Notice given
to the local agent, by first-class mail to the address provided by the owner, shall also be sufficient
to satisfy any required notice to the owner under this chapter.
Attachment B, 13
(21) Initial Complaints.
Initial complaints concerning a short-term rental property shall be directed to the local agent. The
local agent shall resolve the issue that was the subject of the complaint within sixty (60) minutes,
or within thirty (30) minutes if the problem occurs between eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. to seven
o'clock (7:00) A.M., including visiting the site if necessary.
(22) Formal Complaints
i. If an initial complaint is not resolved in the required timeframe or found to have occurred
during the routine compliance operations of town staff, a formal infraction has occurred. The
formal complaint shall describe in detail the violation(s) of this chapter alleged to have
occurred on the short-term rental property. Within three (3) business days of receipt of such
a complaint, the Town shall provide a copy of the formal complaint to the owner.
ii. If there are three (3) or more infractions issued for the same short-term rental property within
any consecutive twelve-month period, the Town Manager or designee may fine the licensee
for that short-term rental property upon written notice to the owner. Fine for first infraction:
$500; second $1,500; third $2,500.
(23) Revocation. The Town Manager or designee may revoke any short-term rental license that was
issued in error. The Town shall notify an owner, in writing, of any revocation and the reasons
therefor. The owner may appeal any revocation by filing a written appeal with the Town Manager
or designee within ten (10) days of the date of the revocation notice. In the written appeal, the
owner shall describe the reason for the appeal, and may request a hearing before the Town
Manager or designee. The hearing shall be informal, and may be conducted in person or by
telephone, at the discretion of the Town Manager or designee. At the hearing, the owner shall
have the opportunity to be heard on the revocation. Within ten (10) days of the hearing, the Town
Manager or designee shall either uphold or reverse the revocation, in writing. The decision of the
Town Manager or designee shall be final.
(24) Violation and Penalty.
i. It is unlawful for any owner, local agent or occupant of a short-term rental property to
violate any provision of this chapter or any other applicable provision of this Code.
ii. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to the penalties
contained in Chapter 1.09 of this Municipal Code. Any remedies provided for in this Section
shall be cumulative and not exclusive and shall be in addition to any other remedies
provided by law. The imposition of any penalty under this Code shall not preclude the Town
or affected property owner from instituting any appropriate action or proceeding to require
compliance with the provisions of this Code.
Summary of Inclusionary Zoning
Practices in Colorado Communities
Basalt Glenwood Springs
Boulder Longmont
Carbondale Pitkin County & Aspen
Denver San Miguel County
Eagle County Telluride
Basalt Inclusionary Zoning
Required or voluntary participation of new developments:
Required for all new residential and nonresidential developments (Section 16-411).
Minimum project size (# of units):
All new developments must submit a plan for location, mixture of affordable unit type and size, and number
of units to the town council for review and approval. The Town Council will determine how much mitigation is
needed according to the impact of the development and the current housing needs of the town of Basalt. As
decided by the town council the requirement to provide affordable housing may be solely or partially fulfilled
by a dedication of land to the Town or affordable housing provider, or a payment-in-lieu (Section16-415).
The basic requirements state that at least 20% of the dwelling units and 15% of the bedrooms of all new
residential developments over 5 units must be dedicated as affordable (Section 16-416).
All new commercial development must pay the Town a mitigation fee of $.50 cents per sq. ft. and also must
provide affordable housing for a maximum of 20% of the full-time employees generated by the development
(Section 16-417).
Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments:
Affordable housing units should be transit-friendly and should work towards being a “zero energy footprint,”
or energy efficient (Section 16-411). The affordable housing requirement may be fulfilled either on-site or off-
site.
Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range):
Guidelines are set for lower and median incomes, making it possible for them to acquire housing for not
more than 28-36% of their total household income (Section 16-411).
Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing):
NA
Attachment C, 1
Agency or entity responsible for managing or monitoring the program:
Basalt Town Council
For more information:
This ordinance can be found on the Basalt Planning Department Web site
Once at the web site, follow this path for the ordinance.
Basalt Municipal Code > “Zoning” > Article XIX “Housing Mitigation”, pages 121-126
Boulder Inclusionary Zoning
Required or Voluntary participation of new developments:
All new developments are required to participate unless they fulfill the requirement through cash-in-lieu, land
dedication, or off-site dedication.
Cash-in-Lieu requirements: For each unrestricted detached unit the contribution will be the lesser of
$13,200.00 or $55.00 multiplied by 20% of the total floor area of the unit. For each attached unrestricted unit
the contribution will be the lesser of $12,000.00 or $50.00 multiplied by 20% of the total floor area of the unit.
These rates can be adjusted annually by the city manager to reflect changes in the median sale price for
detached and attached housing. An affordable housing fund established by the city manager will receive and
manage all money collected by cash-in-lieu contributions. This money will be used solely for the
construction, purchase, and maintenance of affordable housing and for the costs of administering programs
related to Inclusionary Zoning codes (Boulder Revised Code, Chapter 9-6.5-6).
Minimum project size (# of Units):
Developments of 5 or more units are required to include at least 20% of the total number of units as
permanently affordable units. Developments of four or less may include one permanently affordable unit by
dedicating an off-site affordable unit, dedicating land that meets requirements set forth in “Off-Site
Inclusionary Zoning Option” Section 9-6.5-7, or by providing a cash-in-lieu contribution to the city’s
affordable housing fund. (Boulder Revised Code, Chapter 9-6.5-5).
Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments :
Off-site vs. on-site: In developments that require more than one affordable unit, there must be a minimum
of half affordable units built on-site, unless the city manager determines that building these units off-site
would provide additional benefits for the city or if zoning, environmental, or legal restrictions make on-site
compliance unfeasible. The off-site obligation may be fulfilled through a cash-in-lieu contribution, land
dedication, or dedication of existing units.
Minimum sizes for permanently affordable units: The average floor area of detached affordable units is a
minimum of 48% of the average floor area of the units that are part of the same development (up to a max.
average size of 1,200 sq. ft.). The average floor area of attached affordable units is a minimum of 80% the
average floor area of the units that are part of the same development (up to a max. average size of 1,200
sq. ft.).
Design Flexibility: There is a permit for the decrease in size of finished floor area by the city manager if the
unit is increased in size by 2 sq. ft. of unfinished, potentially habitable space for each finished sq. ft. of floor
area that is decreased (up to a max. of 400 unfinished sq. ft.). This potentially habitable space will be
Attachment C, 2
determined in consideration of an adequate foundation, sound structural components, floor to ceiling
heights, weather resistant roofs, appropriate exits, and window placement. (Boulder Revised Code, Chapter
9-6.5-5)
Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range):
Very low, low, and moderate incomes determined by the asset limitations in the Boulder Revised Code.
Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing) :
No unit can sell, lease, or rent an affordable unit to people above the eligible income level. Those qualified to
rent or purchase permanently affordable units must have a fair chance to become informed about the
availability and the owner or seller must submit a public advertising plan, “Good Faith Marketing”, to the city
manager for approval. (Boulder Revised Code, 9-6.5-10).
Agency or entity responsible for managing or monitoring the program:
City Manager and City Council members.
For more information:
Text of the ordinance can be found on the Boulder web site.
In order to access the text click the link and follow the following path.
Go to Quick Links, scroll down to “Codes and Regulations” > Boulder Revised Code, 1981 > Title 9 “Land
Use Regulation” > Chapter 9-6.5 “Inclusionary Zoning”
Carbondale Inclusionary Zoning
Required or voluntary participation of new developments:
Required as a condition of approval for all residential development and any building permit application for a
development with 5 or more units (Section 15.25.030).
The Board of Trustees has the authority to grant variances to the affordable housing ordinance, but only if
the variance is in the best interest of the community and furthers the overall goal of promoting affordable
housing for Carbondale citizens. These variances include incentives provided by the developer instead of
required units, or voluntary restrictions on housing units by the developer (Section 15.25.100).
Minimum project size (#of units):
Developments of 5-20 units must set-aside 15% of all lots to be deed-restricted as affordable and available
to families within 150% of AMI. For developments of 20 or more units, 15% must be deed-restricted, and
available to families within 65% to 150% AMI. Developments resulting in a fraction of a required unit must
pay a cash-in-lieu fee (Section 15.25.050).
Community housing must be deed-restricted to people that live and work in Carbondale or the project
developer (Section 15.25.070).
Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments:
Attachment C, 3
On-site housing is preferred, but off-site housing within the town of Carbondale and outside of the Town
limits, but within the Town’s Urban Growth Boundary are given consideration with regard to proximity of the
units to schools, public transportation, and shopping. Otherwise, cash-in-lieu fee required (Section
15.25.060).
Units must be developed in accordance to the size, design, and occupancy standards established in the
Carbondale Community Housing Guidelines. Occupancy of affordable units must be available at the same
time as market-rate units (Section 15.25.070).
Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range):
Must be in the low to moderate income level, with 65% to 150% of AMI (Section 15.25.050).
Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing):
Follows according to the deed restriction (Section 15.25.070).
Agency or entity responsible for managing and monitoring the program:
The Carbondale Planning Director, local Housing Authorities, and the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Carbondale
For more information:
Carbondale Ordinance No. 27, hardcopy only.
Denver Inclusionary Zoning
Required or voluntary participation of new developments:
Required participation of all new developments and also existing buildings that are being substantially
rehabilitated or remodeled to provide dwelling units (Section 27-104). Applications for building permits must
include a Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) plan otherwise they will not be approved by the City and
County of Denver Community Planning and Development Agency (CPDA) (Section 27-106).
Alternatives to providing MPDUs include building more MPDUs at one or more other sites in the same or
adjoining statistical neighborhood, or a contribution to the special revenue fund that is equal to 50% of the
price per MPDU that is not provided. The prices are determined by CPDA and their table of current
maximum sales prices (Section 27-106).
Developers also receive incentives for building MPDUs as a reimbursement of $5,000 per unit built, up to
50% of the total units in a development, and $10,000 per MPDU built that is affordable for households
earning no more than 60% AMI, up to 50% total units built. However, the reimbursement amount is limited to
the amount available in the special revenue fund, and is awarded by the director of CPDA (Section 27-107).
Supplemental incentives include density bonuses of up to 10% if one unit is MPDU, parking requirement
reduction of up to 20% if one MPDU is built for every 10 spaces reduced, and expedited processing of
building plans if all MPDU requirements are met in plan (Section 27-108).
Minimum project size (#of units):
Developments with a total of 30 or more units are required to provide 10% MPDUs, which are affordable to
households earning no more than 80% of AMI. Developments with 3 or more stories, elevators, and 60%
structured parking, must also provide 10% of total units as MPDUs, which are affordable for households
Attachment C, 4
earning no more than 95% AMI. Maximum purchase prices for MPDUs is determined by the CPDA and is
adjusted according to number of bedrooms with a maximum down payment of 5% (Section 27-105).
Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments:
MPDUs are required to be indistinguishable from market-rate units and depending on the size of the
development they must be dispersed in two or more locations throughout the development. In single-family
developments MPDUs must have 2 or more bedrooms, and in multi-family dwelling units the ratio of one
bedroom units must not exceed that of the market-rate units (Section 27-106).
Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range):
Eligibility is determined by AMI calculation adjusted for household size, low and moderate household income
are targeted with incomes no more than 80% or 95% AMI depending on the development. Unit must also be
the primary residence of eligible household (Section 27-110).
Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing):
Governmental agencies or non-profit organizations designated by the director of CPDA are eligible buyers of
for sale MPDUs as well as households with low or moderate incomes. CPDA must be notified 30 days
before an initial offering of and MPDU and then the unit must be marketed to eligible households. Eligible
households must be verified by CPDA before sale of unit (Section 27-110).
Agency or entity responsible for managing and monitoring the program:
City and County of Denver Community Planning and Development Agency
For more information:
Text of the ordinance can be found on the Denver Municipal Code Web site
In order to access the text click the link and follow the following path Go to Chapter 27 “Preservation of
Affordable Housing”, Article III “Preservation of Affordable Housing” and IV “Affordable Housing”.
Eagle County Inclusionary Zoning
Required or voluntary participation of new developments:
All new residential developments are required to participate with either Inclusionary Housing or
Employee/Housing Linkage (each defined in “Limits”) (Section 3-100).
Minimum project size (#of Units):
All Inclusionary Housing developments of 4 or more units within Eagle County must include up to 20% of
total housing unit need generated by the particular development’s employees for qualified moderate to low
income units developed as affordable housing (Section 3-110). All Employee/Housing Linkage should
provide 20% of the total housing unit need generated by the development’s employee that are qualified low
income and very low income (Section 3-120).
Developers may choose to satisfy their requirement with a payment in-lieu fee at 30% mitigation rate to the
Eagle County Housing Fund or other qualified Local Resident Housing Developer (Section 3-140).
Attachment C, 5
Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments:
If the developer is only required to develop one affordable housing unit it must be designated as a two-
bedroom unit. If the developer is required to develop more than one unit, the units should be distributed as
one, two, and three bedroom units (Section 3-110).
Other requirements include:
• Location outside of potential geologic hazards associated with development (high flood risk, etc.),
• Site is a slope of less than 20%,
• public infrastructure is available to site,
• Housing conforms to the County Master Plan and Sub-Area Community Plans,
• Has suitable drainage and soils, not adjacent to nuisances, located within an appropriate zone
district (Section 3-130).
• Unit should meet all building codes and built in a standard to enhance durability over time (Section
3-170).
Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable housing units (AMI range):
Two Types of requirements: Inclusionary Housing targeted for development of moderate income housing
with 80% and 100% of AMI or Employee/Housing Linkage targeted for development of low income housing
with 60% and 80% of AMI (Section 3-100). The residence must be the primary residence and the applicant
must be a qualified employee, working at least 30 hours a week for 8 of the past 12 months in Eagle County
(Section 4-100).
Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing):
The initial maximum purchase price shall not exceed 30% of the targeted income group (Section 3-160). The
unit may only be sold to qualified purchasers and cannot exceed the maximum purchase price, which is the
owner’s purchase price plus the percentage increase for each year of the average wage for Eagle County as
determined by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, not exceeding 6% (Section 5-100).
Agency or entity responsible for managing and monitoring the program:
Eagle County
For more information :
Eagle County Housing Ordinance
Scroll down and go to “Local Resident Housing Guidelines”
Glenwood Springs Inclusionary Zoning
Required or voluntary participation of new developments:
Applicants for all new residential development permits are subject to the inclusionary requirements.
Minimum project size (# of units):
Attachment C, 6
All residential developments of 3 or more units must provide at least 15% as affordable housing units. New
developments of single-family lots and multi-family housing projects must be deed restricted for the average
sales price of 80% AMI as determined by HUD for Garfield County (Section IV).
Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments:
All units must be on-site, distributed within the development, unless approved otherwise. Off-site housing is
approved only if the developer can demonstrate that off-site housing would be of greater benefit to the
community. A cash-in-lieu fee can be collected only if the development is small and results in a fraction
(Section IV, A).
Units must also meet minimum square footage guidelines for studios, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-
bedroom, and single family detached (Section IV, C).
Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range):
Eligible households must be employed full-time in Glenwood Springs, a retired person who has been a full-
time employee in Glenwood Springs for a minimum of 4 years prior to retirement, or a disabled person also
employed in Glenwood Springs for 2 years prior to their disability (Section III, A). They must also meet
income guidelines of low (category 1, 60% of AMI), moderate (category 2 & 3, 80 to 100% AMI), or middle
income (category 4, 100 to 120% AMI) and also they must be certified in these categories by the Garfield
County Housing Authority (Section III, D).
Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing):
All affordable housing units are deed restricted with resale restrictions and future buyers are bound by the
restrictions as well. There is also an appreciation cap on all deed restricted affordable housing of 3%
annually (Section III, H). Maximum sales price is determined by the program administrator, and a lottery is
held for eligible buyers (Section III, J).
Agency or entity responsible for managing and monitoring the program:
Garfield County Housing Authority
For more information:
Ordinance No. 24, hardcopy only and Resolution No. 2001-16, Glenwood Springs Community Housing
Guidelines, hardcopy only.
Longmont Inclusionary Zoning
Required or voluntary participation of new developments:
Every residential development is required to participate through an annexation agreement and can meet the
affordable housing requirement by constructing affordable units or paying an in-lieu fee (Section C).
Payment in-lieu must pay for the number of affordable units, or partial units, that are required. For single-
family detached housing, $108,423 for each unit, for multi-family rental housing, $48,797 for each high-
density unit or $63,188 for each medium density unit, and for owner-occupied town homes or condos, $62,
312 per unit (Section C, 3).
Attachment C, 7
Depending on the amount of affordable housing provided, the duration of the deed restrictions, the potential
demand for affordable housing and the design and quality of affordable housing, density bonuses may be
granted to the developers (Section F).
Minimum project size (# of units):
At least 10% of the total units developed must be affordable units. These units can be on-site or off-site if
determined acceptable by City Council (Section C, 2).
Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments:
Affordable housing in a residential development must be mixed-in and not segregated from market-rate units
in any way (Section E, 4). Affordable units must also be similar in exterior appearance to market-rate units
and they must comply with applicable dimensional standards (Section E, 5& 6).
Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range):
The City Manager is in charge of determining rules and regulations for eligibility, including household size,
makeup, and income and must be compatible with HUD’s Section 8 Program Income Eligibility
Determination Guidelines, or CHFA’s rent limits (Section E, 3).
Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing):
Affordable rental housing units must be rented for a period of at least 20 years to eligible income groups
unless otherwise approved by City Council. Affordable homes for sale must be deed-restricted to assure
affordability for at least 10 years unless otherwise approved by City Council (Section E, 2).
Agency or entity responsible for managing and monitoring the program:
City Council and the City Manager
For more information:
Land Development Code, Chapter 15.05 Development Standards, 15.05.220 Affordable Housing, hardcopy
only.
Pitkin County and Aspen Inclusionary Zoning
Pitkin County Inclusionary Zoning:
All new developments and redevelopments requiring a building permit, within unincorporated Pitkin County,
are subject to “Fair Share Requirements”, which are the requirements put on developments to pay for a
share of the impacts generated by the development, unless somehow exempt under requirements (Section
11-100). Right now, the code includes requirements for public roads, but does not yet include affordable
housing requirements. Section 10-120 is reserved for affordable housing requirements.
Go to Title 8, Article 10 “Fair Share Requirements”
Aspen Inclusionary Zoning:
At this time, Aspen’s Land Use Code includes a section for affordable housing. As determined by Aspen City
Council, if a proposed development constitutes an affordable housing project, the City Council can exempt
Attachment C, 8
the development from the required impact fees. The impact fees include park development impact and
school land dedication (Title 26, part 600).
Go to: Departments, “Zoning Information” > Land Use Code > Title 26, part 600 “Impact Fees and
Dedications”
However, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority puts out guidelines for development of, admission to,
and occupancy of deed restricted employee-housing units in Aspen and Pitkin County. These guidelines do
not overrule the county or city’s Land Use Codes, but are annually reviewed and approved by the Housing
Board and City Council.
For more information:
Aspen Housing Office
San Miguel County Inclusionary Zoning
Required or voluntary participation of new developments:
Impact mitigation, or inclusionary zoning, is required as a condition of approval for new developments of
office, restaurant, and retail, hotel, ski-area, and residential (San Miguel County Land Use Code, Section 5-
1303). Deed restriction is imposed on each real property designated as Affordable Housing (Section 5-
1304).
Minimum project size (# of units):
An office, restaurant or retail development has been found to generate 3 employees per 1,000 gross square
feet, and therefore must mitigate 15% of this impact by building deed-restricted housing for one employee
for every 2,250 gross sq. ft. (Section 5-1303 A.) Hotel and residential developments are also required to
mitigate 15% of impact. Hotel developments must provide mitigation for .225 employees per unit created
(Section 5-1303 B.). Residential mitigation is required for all developments larger than seven lots/units with
one of every 7 lots/units being deed-restricted (Section 5-1303 C.). Each ski area development that creates
new facilities must provide housing for 15% of employees during all seasons, and for each new ski lift
added, the ski are must provide housing for 2 employees (Section 5-1303 D.).
Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range):
Must be a qualified employee who’s primary and sole residence is in San Miguel, Montrose, Ouray, or
Dolores Counties (Section 5-1304).
Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing):
Properties must be sold, transferred and/or conveyed in compliance with guidelines for the San Miguel Land
Use Code. The restrictions on ownership, use, and occupancy runs for 50 years from the date of
recordation, and can be extended another period of 50 years by the Board of County Commissioners after
public hearing (Section 5-1304). No affordable housing can be sold or rented without submission of written
notice to the Housing Authority, and it can only be sold to qualified employees of the county (Section 5-1305
F.). Further restrictions are extensively laid out in the Land Use Code, Section 5-1305.
Agency or entity responsible for managing or monitoring the program:
San Miguel County Board of Commissioners and the Housing Authority
Attachment C, 9
For more information:
www.sanmiguelcounty.org
Telluride Inclusionary Zoning
Required or voluntary participation of new developments:
Affordable Housing Requirements apply to all residential and non-residential new developments, with
exception to those that are determined to be exempt (laid out in Section 7-730) (Affordable Housing
Requirements, Section 3-720).
Minimum project size (# of units):
Developers are required to provide a minimum square footage of affordable housing based upon the impact
of their development. This minimum is determined by the number of employees generated by the proposed
development multiplied by 40%. For commercial/public developments the minimum is 4.5 employees per
1,000 sq. ft.; hotels and residential developments the minimum is .33 employees per lodging unit
Pending the Telluride Housing Authorities approval, alternate forms of providing required affordable housing
include purchasing a unit on the open market and placing a deed restriction on it or construction of
dormitory/shared family units to provide square footage to meet affordable housing requirement (Affordable
Housing Guidelines, Section 11).
Additionally, a payment in lieu will be accepted based on per-square foot rate of $90.00, but not exceeding
15% of the total minimum affordable housing requirement. This money is only to be used for planning,
subsidizing or developing affordable and employee housing. Fees collected may be returned to the present
owner if they have not been spent within 7 years of collection (Telluride Affordable Housing Requirements,
Section 3-750.C.).
Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments:
Location: Construction of affordable housing units can be within or outside of the town of Telluride (but within
San Miguel County) provided that such development has not previously been deed-restricted to affordable
housing or employees.
The Developer must provide Telluride Housing Authority with a Housing Mitigation Plan as part of the
development application for approval. The Unit Size Standards for the affordable housing requirement are
defined in the Guidelines and are as follows:
• One bedroom units have a min. sq. ft. of 350 and max. of 550;
• Two bedroom units have a min. sq. ft. of 650 and max. of 875;
• Three bedroom units have a min. sq. ft. of 850 and max. of 1,200.
• Units larger than the 3-bedroom maximum will still be credited against the affordable housing
requirement the same as a 3-bedroom unit.
• All newly constructed deed restricted units must comply with the Uniform Building Code, and must
have a fully equipped kitchen and full bathroom, areas for living and sleeping, and designated
areas for storage (Affordable Housing Guidelines, Section 9).
Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range):
Units created under the Affordable Housing Guidelines are targeted for people of middle income based upon
affordability at the 45th percentile of individual income for employees within the town of Telluride, upper limit
Attachment C, 10
equal to the 90 th percentile individual income. Affordability Standard: $2,083 per month per bedroom,
Upper Limit: $5,000 per month per bedroom. The monthly household income limits are adjusted annually
pursuant to the average annul wage in San Miguel County. The eligibility of employees must be approved by
the Telluride Housing Authority (Affordable Housing Guidelines, Section 5). Income, asset, rental, and
ownership qualifications are further laid out in Section 5 of Affordable Housing Guidelines.
Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing):
All affordable housing units are required to be deed restricted to rental or sales terms and occupancy
limitations that comply with the Telluride Affordable Housing Guidelines (Telluride Affordable Housing
Requirements, Section 3-750.A.).
Agency or entity responsible for managing and monitoring the program:
Telluride Housing Authority, the housing authority reviews the Affordable Housing Guidelines at least every
two years and reports back to the Town Council regarding their effectiveness.
For more information, Go to the Town of Telluride web site
and follow this path:
Your Government > Planning and Building Department > Planning Division > Land Use Code > Article 3:
Zone District Regulations, Division 7 Affordable Housing Requirements
and
The San Miguel Regional Housing Authority
Follow this path:
Programs > Telluride Affordable Housing > Telluride Affordable Housing Guidelines
Hat tip to the Division of Housing's Summer intern, Tayler Canjar for her research on these ordinances.
Attachment C, 11
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 4
Executive Summary
Overview of the VHR Industry
Vacation Home Rentals are BIG Business. The industry is large and rapidly growing, capturing an
increasing share of the travel/lodging market. New hosting sites like Vacasa are continually popping up,
trying to capture a share of the large profits being generated. In 2014 there were over 2.1 million rentals
listed on the top three hosting sites:
x HomeAway, which includes VRBO and roughly 60 other hosting sites, has more than 1 million
listings in 190 countries.
x Airbnb offers over 800,000 listings in more than 34,000 cities worldwide.
x FlipKey offers 300,000 properties in 179 countries.
In comparison, the Marriot family of hotels, which has 19 different brands (from Ritz Carlton to the
Courtyard), are located in 4,000 destinations in 78 counties – only 40% of the countries served by
HomeAway and 12% of the cities serviced by Airbnb.
Part of this fast rise in VHR activity has been assisted by the unequal taxing structure in its early years
when compared to traditional lodging businesses. “When you tax one thing and don't tax another, it's
not shocking that one grows faster,” as stated by William F. Fox, University of Tennessee economics
professor, in an interview with Bloomberg BNA. This is also part of the reason electronic commerce
developed as rapidly as it did 15 years ago.
VHR’s in the “Sharing Economy”
The industry, for which no single term has emerged, is considered part of the “sharing economy”, which
is described on Wikipedia as:
A sharing economy takes a variety of forms, often leveraging information technology to empower
individuals, corporations, non-profits and government with information that enables distribution,
sharing and reuse of excess capacity in goods and services. A common premise is that when
information about goods is shared (typically via an online marketplace), the value of those goods
may increase, for the business, for individuals, and for the community.
The industry has grown far beyond its original status within the “sharing economy.” It is no longer just
using “excess capacity” -- a spare bedroom or two, the home a family would otherwise leave empty
while on vacation, or the second home that owners visit only a few times a year. Many units now listed
on these hosting sites previously housed members of the workforce. They were once homes for families,
but are now tourist accommodations. They were occupied by their owners or rented long term but are
now investor owned and rented for the highest rates achievable as frequently as possible for maximum
profits.
The business model is very distinct from the traditional lodging industry, which also uses online
advertising and booking systems. The difference is that most online hosting sites function as brokers,
taking a percentage of rent charged but leaving compliance with local laws to the individual
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 5
owner/manager and guest. Unlike hotels and other commercial lodging accommodations, online hosting
sites do not ensure that residences meet quality or minimum safety standards, generally do not collect
sales and lodging taxes, and are not limited to locations within commercial zones where the use may be
more compatible or expected.
VHR’s Presence in Mountain Towns
VHR’s are a significant resource in Rocky Mountain towns, providing visitors an alternative to traditional
lodging offered in these tourism-based economies. The growth in the number of residential units listed
on hosting sites in these communities is outpacing much of the rest of the country and growth in visitor
utilization of these sites is also up. HomeAway reported in 2014 that Park City and Winter Park made
their list of top 10 destinations for the largest increase in new vacation rental listings. Crested Butte was
one of the top 10 in terms of destinations, showing the largest increase in traveler demand.
VHR’s now equal between 1% and 52% of total residential units among the participating CAST
communities. In most towns, VHR numbers have been growing during a time when the recession
brought construction to a halt and new housing starts have just started to recover.
VHR’s Compared to Housing Units
Total Housing Units
2014 Estimates
VHR Listings
2014
Percent of Units
Listed
Breckenridge 7,187 2,911 41%
Crested Butte 1,098 170 15%
Durango 7,234 73 1%
Estes Park 4,176 301 7%
Frisco 3,167* 184 6%
Jackson 4,736 N/A N/A
Mt. Crested Butte 1,575 819 52%
Ouray 802 97 12%
Park City 9,471* 2,547 27%
Steamboat Springs 9,991 696 7%
*2000 Census figures; 2014 estimates for other towns from Colorado State Demographer.
Community Concerns
From large cities to small resort towns, the proliferation of VHR’s is raising concerns. The National
League of Cities reported that common elements among communities of all sizes are the issues of
ensuring that safety, regulation and licensing systems are up to par, along with proper taxing procedures
given the revenue development potential.
Issues related to the tight and expensive housing markets, preservation of resident neighborhoods and
character, and ensuring a fair playing field with other lodging businesses in terms of tax payment and
regulations are the top concerns among participating CAST communities. The top five issues of concern,
in order, are:
x Loss of free-market rental housing previously rented to the workforce on a long-term basis;
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 6
x Collection of lodging/sales tax;
x Community character;
x Neighborhood change; and
x Vision/plans for the future.
The use of housing restricted for occupancy only by members of the workforce as a VHR was of less
concern than the loss of market rentals; this report will show it happens infrequently. Safety is a
moderate concern but one that might increase over time if accidents and injuries occur.
Source: Survey of elected officials and staff in 10 participating CAST communities; 34 responses received.
Several other concerns that were not as prominent deserve mention given their unique ties to these
communities.
Visitor Experience – The potential negative impacts of VHR’s on visitor experience, through low quality
or unsafe accommodations for example, received a relatively low rating overall. Park City, however,
rated this issue significantly higher (3.7 average). The resort prides itself on its reputation for offering a
paramount visitor experience and is concerned that a largely unregulated industry could adversely
impact this experience.
Over time, concerns about negative visitor experiences may increase from:
2.0
2.3
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.9
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
NEW CONSTRUCTION OF LODGING
NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE
PROPERTY TAXATION
OVERCROWDING
IMPACTS ON LODGING OCCUPANCY RATES
SAFETY
POTENTIAL PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SHORT TERM RENTALS
NOISE
PARKING
EQUITY/FAIRNESS COMPARED TO LODGING
USE OF WORKFORCE HOUSING AS SHORT-TERM RENTALS
VISION/PLANS FOR THE FUTURE
NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE
COMMUNITY CHARACTER
COLLECTION OF LODGING/SALES TAX
LOSS OF LONG-TERM RENTAL HOUSING
1 = Minor Concern; 5 = Major Concern
Perceptions about Community Concerns
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 7
x Publicized incidents of visitors who are endangered, hurt or even killed by unsafe VHR’s that are
not up to lodging codes;
x Dissatisfaction among visitors who want to “live like locals” and 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.
In many resort communities, surveys sponsored by Chambers of Commerce, the ski resort companies,
the municipalities or other entities could be a source for better understanding visitor experience and
determining if steps should be taken to help experiences be positive. Questions about how lodging
reservations are made are standard in these surveys. In some towns including Breckenridge, analysis of
existing surveys could be very insightful about visitor experience.
New Lodging Construction – Most communities do not appear to be concerned that the increased
availability of VHR’s through online hosting sites may be a factor in reduced hotel and lodging
development. Of the 10 CAST participants, the only one with major lodging projects under construction
is Breckenridge.
Equity/Fairness With Lodging – Communities are concerned about VHR’s being treated equitably with
existing commercial lodging. The term “level playing field” was used by many of the town officials
interviewed.
Potential Prohibitions Against Short-Term Rentals – This is a concern of many community members,
including but not limited to:
x Local residents who want to occasionally rent their homes or spare bedrooms short term to help
pay mortgages.
x Realtors with listings they want to be allowed to sell to investors or second homeowners who
want to rent their units short term.
x Public officials who recognize the contributions that VHR’s make to their bed base and tax
revenue.
Contrary to community concerns about potential prohibitions, most communities have been moving to
legalize VHR’s where they were previously prohibited.
Matrix of Best Practices
The following matrix summarizes the Best Practices described in this report. The Best and Potential
Practices are listed in the column on the left. The report section within which each practice is discussed
and recommended appears across the top row. An “X” indicates each section within which the
recommended practice is discussed. This serves both as a summary of practice recommendations that
was derived from this research, as well as a map for the report so that communities interested in a
particular practice can easily locate each section of the report with relevant information. Some practices
are applicable to multiple issues as indicated by an “X” under more than one category.
CAST could have a significant role in the implementation of Best Practices, taking on responsibilities for
state initiatives in revisions to state statutes on property and sales taxes, negotiating agreements with
hosting sites and developing efficient tracking systems.
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 8
Best and Potential Practices Tracking Regulations Licensing Permits Taxing Staffing Neighborhood Impacts Workforce Housing Post information within the VHR X X X
Require local manager/emergency contact X X X
Coordinate with jurisdictions in region X X X
Create website on VHR’s X X X
Require property inspections X X
Negotiate Airbnb agreement X X
Require license numbers to be on all listings X X
Give neighbors notice X X
Map licensed/permitted VHR’s X X
Establish fee to cover management costs X X
Coordinate tracking across departments X X
Publish VHR requirements in newspapers X X
Work with code enforcement on complaints X
Post local VHR regulations on Airbnb X
Restrict VHR concentration X
Implement more restrictive regulations where impacts
are higher
X
Give owners unique rights to short-term their homes X
Permit bedroom rentals w/owners present X
Create separate categories for VHR’s depending on time
rented
X
Dedicate/hire staff for license compliance X
Educate realtors about requirements X
Link complaints to legal vs illegal VHR’s X
Establish enforcement procedures and use them X
Revoke licenses/permits for violations X
Increase license fees to mitigate workforce housing
impacts
X
Collect VHR details on license or permit applications X
Educate visitors that listings must have license numbers X
Initiate state action to address 30-day limit on sale
taxation
X
Initiate state action to address how properties are
classified for property taxes
Assign community development lead responsibility for
VHR’s
X
Coordinate VHR’s w/ economic development X
Add staff specialist X
Hold stakeholder roundtables X
Impose occupancy limits X
Impose visitor limits X
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 9
Best and Potential Practices continued Tracking Regulations Licensing Permits Taxing Staffing Neighborhood Impacts Workforce Housing
Limit outdoor parties X
Manage trash X
Address parking X
Have general nuisance provision X
Use real estate database to track conversion of housing
into VHR’s
X
Create housing census X
Prohibit use of workforce housing for VHR’s X
Require check for workforce compliance when licensing
VHR’s
X
Allocate VHR revenue to housing X
Replace lost housing units X
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 10
I. Tracking
Issues and Emerging Trends
The ability to track and collect information on Vacation Home Rentals advertised on hosting sites is in
turmoil. Local governments have been struggling with finding and identifying VHR owners and property
managers since this issue arose in the mid-2000’s. CAST communities are not the only communities
struggling with collecting the information that they need to ensure VHR’s are operating as legal licensed
and tax paying entities. The general consensus is that more cooperation from the hosting sites is needed
to improve tracking and VHR compliance. Current litigation and legislative efforts are largely aimed at
this purpose.
Progress Made on Hosting Site Compliance
Both Airbnb and HomeAway (and its subsidiaries), the two primary hosting sites, provide information on
their websites and in their user agreements that alert VHR owners that they may be subject to and must
comply with permitting, licensing and tax laws in their jurisdiction.
Airbnb has a “Responsible Hosting” webpage, which includes notifying owners to check their
community’s regulations with respect to taxing, permits and other regulations, with links provided to
several city websites explaining these requirements.
Airbnb has negotiated agreements with several cities to collect taxes on behalf of VHR’s that are hosted
on their website. San Francisco was also able to collect back-taxes owed. These agreements may contain
additional provisions, such as requiring permit numbers to be posted on advertisements. Part of
Portland’s agreement will allow VHR hosts to receive free smoke and carbon monoxide detectors upon
request and Airbnb will assist Portland's tourism board to promote the city and its attractions.
Tracking Units Has Become Harder
Despite these advances, collecting information on VHR’s advertised on these sites has gotten more
difficult. The experience of CAST community participants has not been unlike that of cities and counties
throughout the nation. CAST communities noted that:
x Exact address and owner contact information is not available on Airbnb and limited on other sites;
x Listings are inconsistent, with some providing street addresses and unit numbers and others not;
and
x VRBO no longer lists properties in the same order, meaning that new listings are harder to find.
Communities Use Subpoenas to Obtain Information
Several communities facing the same frustrations have issued subpoenas with some success to procure
ownership and rental information from Airbnb and other hosting sites. VHR owners have sued Airbnb to
preserve the privacy of their information. Pursuant to Airbnb’s user agreement, subpoenas protect them
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 11
against legal action from VHR owners/managers. Subpoenas are, therefore, one method through which
detail on owners and bookings may be received from some hosting sites.
Data Mining Barriers
Adding complication, HomeAway’s user agreement for visitors to its website prohibits data mining of
information on VRBO and its other sites without its written permission. Governments seeking
information to ensure VHR license and tax compliance have not been issued such permission. Program
scripts to collect data from Airbnb are available online, but are of limited utility for tracking units given
the impreciseness of property location and lack of address and owner information provided.
Cities Requiring Hosting Sites to Provide VHR Data
The lack of accessible data has resulted in some communities instituting or considering ordinances
requiring names and addresses to be provided by hosting sites. For example, Portland has struggled to
increase its license participation rate above 10 percent. The City’s inability to identify violators or receive
cooperation from Airbnb in ensuring compliance or providing needed information led the City to pass a
new ordinance effective this year. As of February 20, 2015, VHR hosting websites are required to
provide the VHR location and names and addresses of VHR owners/managers so the City can verify that
properties are operating pursuant to city requirements. This information has yet to be released by the
hosting sites.
San Francisco began licensing short-term rentals in February of this year. In March, only a few dozen
residents had registered, while about 5,000 rooms and units are listed on short-term rental sites. A city
board member has proposed revisions to require Airbnb to share data about rentals, including length of
time rented and unit information.
State Initiatives Surfacing
Dueling state initiatives have also been making their way into the legislature. For example, in California,
SB 593 would require online vacation rental companies to disclose VHR information to cities and
counties. A competing bill, AB 1220, sought to prohibit local governments from collecting Transient
Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) for short-term residential rentals, but has since been withdrawn by its author.
CAST Survey Findings
When Communities Began Tracking
Most participating CAST communities began tracking VHR’s advertised on various hosting sites between
five and ten years ago. Tax collection was the primary motivation. Durango is the exception, having
started tracking in 2014 in response to neighborhood impacts and citizen concerns.
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 12
Hosting Sites Tracked
All track VRBO and Airbnb and most also track HomeAway and Craigslist. Local property manager sites
and the local newspaper are alternative sources that some communities scour. Only three communities
track rooms for rent in addition to complete units.
Frequency of Tracking
Communities may pull data monthly, quarterly, yearly, or a few times each year. Durango, Breckenridge
and Steamboat are a few communities that track VHR’s on a regular basis. Several other communities
track properties “as time allows.”
Information Collected
All communities face challenges collecting VHR data. The information available varies by hosting site.
Airbnb does not provide addresses, owner contact information, nor exact locations of units and other
sites have varying pieces of information available. While condo complex names, bedrooms available for
rent, and rental terms (daily, weekly, monthly) may be pulled from various sites, this information is
inconsistent in its availability.
Understanding Owner Occupancy of VHR’s
Only Frisco noted that they are able to identify the time that owners occupy their units. This is typically
checked only when units are listed by both a property manager and the owner. They have found that
owner occupancy may be reported on the listings calendar on some hosting sites. For units managed by
a management company for part of the year, some may be able to report the number of weeks for
which the owner occupies the unit or is responsible for bookings.
Approach/Methodology
Each community pulls data manually and conducts a record-by-record search. While VHR addresses can
eventually be identified, the process is time-consuming and can be frustrating.
VHR information is stored in MS Excel or Access and new listings are manually compared to existing files.
In communities with licensing and permitting requirements, listed VHR’s are cross-checked with
licensing/permitting records to check compliance.
If addresses are not found through the hosting sites, communities use a combination of photos, online
maps, condominium complex names, owner names and/or property management names to locate a
property. If an owner or property manager is known, they can be contacted for an address. Maps may
provide the general location, and photos make it possible to identify the property upon driving to the
area or comparing to ArcGIS and Google map street views. Some conducting property searches are very
familiar with the communities and can recognize most properties from the photos while sitting at their
desks.
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 13
Durango and Steamboat Springs both tried creating accounts on Airbnb to notify owners of their need to
comply with regulations. Both accounts were promptly canceled for violation of user agreements. Frisco
has had some success contacting owners through the hosting sites without incident – the small number
of properties in this community (under 30) may not have drawn the attention of the hosting sites.
Duplication of Effort
In most CAST communities, different entities parse the same data to identify only those properties
within their respective jurisdictions. Better communication and coordination of resources could improve
the tracking process and investment for all entities.
Estes Park is unique because it also manages legal VHR’s in unincorporated areas of the county defined
as the “Estes Valley” (this is discussed in more detail in the Permitting section of this report). Therefore,
the role of monitoring units located both within and outside town limits within the Estes Valley is
conducted by only one jurisdictional office.
Assistance From Complaints
Ouray and Estes Park reported that neighbor complaints regarding noise, parking, parties or other
nuisance issues can call their attention to units that are VHR’s.
Durango provides an online map of all permitted VHR’s with the ability for visitors to submit complaints
directly to the community development department, which can be useful for tracking VHR activity. It
also informs neighbors of the existence (or not) of VHR’s in their area.
Best Practices
Optimally, hosting sites would be required to provide needed information to communities upon request
to track VHR’s. Communities can monitor the progress of Portland’s new ordinance and state legislation,
such as California’s SB 593, in achieving local and statewide compliance. Communities could also lobby
for similar initiatives on a statewide basis. Since taxation is largely controlled by state statutes,
cooperative initiatives are needed.
Until hosting sites start providing this information, communities should consider several options:
Negotiate Airbnb agreement – Portland, Malibu
x Can go beyond tax collection and require permit numbers to be on ads and VHR information to
be provided upon request.
x Most individual communities may be too small, but cooperative agreements encompassing
multiple communities, entire counties, or the CAST organization may have some success.
Post local VHR regulations on Airbnb – Truckee, Snowmass
x Have your community added to the list of cities for which Airbnb provides direct links to your
VHR requirements at https://www.airbnb.com/support/responsible-hosting
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 14
Require license numbers to be displayed on all advertising – Durango, Steamboat
x Greatly assists with identifying non-compliant properties and new listings.
Coordinate VHR tracking across departments – Steamboat
x When collecting information on the CAST survey for this study, several communities needed to
pass the survey to various departments to collect the needed information, with inconsistent
results. Steamboat has a system where planning staff provides VHR data to finance, who then
provides legal VHR listings to police/compliance – the departments were in communication.
Various city departments with an interest in tracking VHR’s need to coordinate to share
information and avoid duplication of effort.
Work with Code Enforcement on Complaints – Ouray, Estes Park
x Communication with code compliance, planning, police or other departments that enforce
VHR’s and nuisance regulations can call attention to properties that may be illegal VHR’s.
Map VHR’s – Durango and Crested Butte
x This educates the public regarding VHR’s in the community and can provide a resource through
which complaints can be logged, helping to locate illegal VHR’s.
x It provides elected officials and staff the information needed to quickly understand changes in
their communities and to revise policies and codes as appropriate. The following maps of VHR’s
in Crested Butte illustrate how powerful mapping can be.
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 15
Coordinate VHR tracking with other jurisdictions in the region – Estes Park
x When searching on the hosting sites for VHR’s in a specified location, rentals located both within
and outside of city or town limits are shown. Rather than have both city/town staff and county
staff parse the same properties to identify those that are within and outside of the jurisdiction,
sharing the responsibility could be much more efficient.
Potential Practice
CAST Initiative – Development of Tracking System and Database
x Develop a system that captures data on units for sharing by multiple departments
and that could be replicated by towns and counties.
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 24
III. Licensing and Permitting
Issues and Emerging Trends
License requirements evolved along with regulations to ensure responsible maintenance and leasing of
VHR’s. License and permit applications typically require safety inspections and the background
information necessary to ensure VHR’s are operated in accordance with local regulations. This may
include insurance requirements, designating a 24/7 emergency contact to handle problems and
complaints, requiring license and permit numbers to be displayed on all advertising, providing “good
neighbor” information to renters, and notifying neighbors of units being rented and VHR manager
contact information. Yearly renewal ensures communities remain up-to-date on VHR changes and
permit revocation procedures help ensure continuous VHR owner compliance.
A challenge for some communities has been getting VHR owners to acquire necessary permits and
licenses. While education of owners and property managers regarding the licensing process has been
instituted by most communities, this has been more effective when paired with good enforcement.
Licenses and Permits Often Have Safety, Advertising, Notice and Renewal Requirements
Permits and licenses typically record necessary information regarding the VHR, such as number of
bedrooms, owner information, property manager or emergency contact information, use or occupancy
restrictions, among other requirements. In addition, to receive a permit or license, many communities
require the following:
x Safety inspection: Austin, Portland, San Francisco, Chicago, Santa Fe;
x Proof of adequate property insurance coverage: Austin, San Francisco, Santa Fe; and
x Permit or license number to be displayed on all advertising: Austin, Portland, San Francisco, Santa
Fe, Sonoma County, Bend, Oregon.
Neighbors may also need to be notified as part of the permit process. For example:
x Austin requires notice be given to neighbors for public comment as part of the permit approval
process, similar to other land use applications.
x Many communities require notice to be sent to neighbors upon permit issuance. Notice may provide
neighbors with the address; terms of rental use or permit; contact information for a property
manager, owner or emergency contact in the event of problems; and the process for reporting
violations or complaints to the community’s enforcement office. This can be an effective tool to help
neighbors know about and police VHR activity in their area. Portland, Oregon, and Petaluma, Santa
Cruz, and Sonoma County in California require neighbor notice.
Most of the above communities also require annual renewal of permits or licenses. Yearly renewal
maintains a current list of active vacation rentals and contact information. Renewals may also be
withheld if VHR regulations have been violated, too many complaints have been received, applicable
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 25
taxes have not been paid, or if there are health and safety issues on the property. As an exception,
Portland requires renewal every two years, with a new inspection required every six years, barring a
change in owner, bedrooms rented, or cause for safety or violation concern.
License and Permit Fees
Most communities have modest license and permit fees for VHR’s – in some cases insufficient to cover
paperwork processing, tax collection, property inspections and monitoring.
x Portland charges $178 for the initial license and $62 for each renewal year in which an inspection is
not required. For inspection years, $178 is charged.
x Austin charges $285 for an initial permit and $235 for renewals. A budget of $350,000 has been
established to cover the hiring of three staff members to register and inspect VHR’s. Fees for an
estimated 1,500 VHR’s are intended to fund this budget.
x In Napa, fees were initially set to cover all application processing, inspections and monitoring of VHR
permits such that no costs were borne by the general public. In 2009, owners paid $1,075 per year;
the permit fee has since decreased to $197 per year. Fewer complaints than expected were received
from neighbors. As a result, the City reduced their allocation of code enforcement staff to VHR’s
and, with it, permit fees.
Enforcement of Licensing and Permitting Requirements
Getting properties to receive required permits and licenses can be a challenge. Generally, communities
with active tracking and identification of illegal rental properties, paired with resident, property
manager and visitor education and strong enforcement ability have been the most successful. In larger
cities in particular, this means dedicating staff or hiring new positions to address illegal VHR’s, taking a
proactive approach in notifying owners of permit and licensing requirements, and following up with
non-responsive owners.
Portland has a license compliance rate of less than 10%. At the other end of the spectrum, Austin has a
compliance rate of about 72%. While other factors are involved, enforcement has played a role in this
difference.
x In Portland, permit issuance was initially centered in the Bureau of Development Services office,
which admittedly is reactive. The office only acts to enforce city rules when a complaint is received;
they do not take an active role in locating or citing illegal VHR’s. A new city ordinance adopted this
year places enforcement with the Revenue Bureau, which takes a more proactive approach. The
Bureau is issuing letters to hosting sites to advise them of the requirement that permit numbers
must be posted on all VHR advertising. Companies can be fined up to $500 per non-compliant
property. Responses are pending.
x In Austin, permit fees are higher than Portland, yet compliance rates are much higher. The City’s
Code Compliance Department hired additional staff specifically to investigate illegal short-term
rental activity and advertised such to the public. The city can also fine VHR operators up to $2,000
per day of non-compliance. When 1,089 properties were notified that they needed licenses, 72
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 26
percent came into compliance by either delisting or getting licenses. Code Compliance and the City’s
criminal prosecution are working together to follow up with the other 300 properties to ensure
everyone is playing by the same rules.
Education can also play an important role. Public information campaigns through newspaper articles and
website postings have been widely used education tools. Less prominent are visitor education
campaigns regarding the importance of renting units that display permit numbers in their
advertisements. Units displaying valid permit numbers let visitors know that they are renting a legal unit
(as opposed to a scam) and that units meet safety and VHR operational requirements. Visitor education
can work from the demand side of the equation.
Revocation of Licenses or Permits
Most communities have the ability to revoke licenses or permits in the event that VHR regulations are
violated or taxes are not paid. Some have a purely discretionary process, whereas others may establish
mandatory thresholds for revocation. For example:
x The City of Santa Fe documents all alleged regulation violations for VHR’s and pursues enforcement
through the municipal court if warranted. Upon conviction of a third violation by the municipal
court, the city shall revoke the permit.
x Portland has a more discretionary revocation procedure, but once a permit is revoked, it may not be
renewed for two years.
CAST Survey Findings
Who Requires Licenses and Permits
x All participating communities except Ouray require a business license for VHR’s. All communities
require a sales tax license number.
x Five communities also require a permit to ensure compliance with land use regulations.
x All require licenses to be renewed once per year. Breckenridge assumes that owners are
renewing their licenses unless the town is informed otherwise. The town will issue an automatic
renewal and charge yearly fees.
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 27
License and Permit Requirements
Business License Permit Yearly Renewal
Breckenridge X X
Crested Butte X X
Durango X X X
Estes Park X X X
Frisco X X
Jackson X X X
Mt. Crested Butte X X
Ouray
Park City X X X
Steamboat Springs X X X
For communities requiring permits:
x Estes Park is unique because it also manages legal VHR’s in unincorporated areas of the county,
defined as the “Estes Valley.” Business licenses are required for VHR’s within city limits only.
VHR’s in the county must get an operating permit.
x Jackson permits VHR’s only in the Lodging Overlay District and the Snow King Master Plan. A
one-time basic land use permit must be received for VHR’s in these zones.
x Steamboat requires single-family homes and duplexes outside of the Resort Residential districts
to apply for a VHR license through the community development department. This application is
reviewed the same as an application for approval of a Use with Criteria. Condominiums are not
required to have this license.
x Durango requires a Limited Use Permit be received for VHR uses. A Conditional Use Permit may
be applied for if general land use permit criteria are not met.
x Park City requires that the VHR’s be located within a zone and subzone allowing VHR’s. A
Conditional Use Permit may be required in some zones.
Permit and License Fees
Fees are applied either on a flat-rate basis each year or scaled based on the number of bedrooms,
sleeping rooms (which includes rooms with a pullout couch bed), or pillows. Fees overall are relatively
modest.
x Breckenridge charges a base fee of $75 for a studio unit, plus $25 per additional bedroom, not
to exceed $175.
x Estes Park charges $150 for renewal of a VHR business license for town properties; renewal of
the county operating permit has no fee.
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 28
x Park City charges a $17 administrative fee, plus $28.74 per bedroom.
Fees for permits range between $500 and $750, imposed as a one-time application fee. Durango also
has a one-time lodgers tax fee ($25) in addition to the below.
Cost of Permits
Permit Application Yearly Renewal
Breckenridge - $75 studio, $25 additional bedrooms, $175 max
Crested Butte - $10/pillow
Durango $750 $50 (license)
Estes Park $0 $150 (license)
Frisco - $75
Jackson $500 N/A
Mt. Crested Butte - $10/pillow
Ouray - N/A
Park City $1,100 (if CUP needed) $17 admin plus $28.74/bedroom
Steamboat Springs $500 $50 per sleeping room (permit)
License and Permit Requirements
License applications collect varying information within the CAST participating communities.
x The most common items are VHR addresses and property manager or emergency contact
information.
x None of the CAST participating communities requires evidence of insurance suitable for short-
term rental use. Nor are times or dates on which the unit will be rented obtained.
x Only two communities require license or permit numbers to be on VHR advertising. Requiring
these numbers has been reported to greatly assist with compliance verification when tracking
units.
In Durango all advertisements for an approved vacation rental unit must clearly display the
permit number issued for the stated purpose of enhancing enforcement of illegal VHR. Failure to
display the permit number is grounds for revocation of the permit.
x Fire and safety inspections are required by three communities upon license or permit
application. Inspections are not required as part of the license or permit renewal process.
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 29
Information Required on Licenses/Permits
Unit
Address
Unit
Type
Manager
Contact
Information
Inspection License
Number on
Advertising
Breckenridge X X X
Crested Butte X X
Durango X X X X X
Estes Park X X
Frisco X X
Jackson
Mt. Crested Butte X X
Ouray
Park City X X X
Steamboat Springs X X X X
Notice to neighbors of rental activity in the neighborhood is required by only one community.
x Durango requires notice to be sent to neighbors when a permit is pending to solicit public
comment prior to approval. After approval, notice indicating the terms of the VHR and contact
information in case of complaints or problems, is not required as is the case in many California
communities.
Has a map on its website of all permitted VHR’s. This allows the public to see VHR activity in
their neighborhood and know whether a permitted VHR is next door.
Posting of license and permit numbers, along with terms of responsible VHR’s and contact information,
within the unit can be beneficial to visitors.
x Breckenridge requires single-family VHR’s to post “Special Conditions of License” in a
“conspicuous location” in the VHR for the benefit of visitors. It outlines parking requirements;
trash, noise and nuisance information; emergency contact requirements; and town contact
information.
Enforcement of Licensing and Permitting Requirements
CAST participating communities tend to have higher compliance with license and tax requirements than
larger cities. Of listed properties, those with a valid license range from 99% in Breckenridge down to
about 50% in Estes Park. This is in part due to the smaller VHR pool and local knowledge of properties by
those tracking listings – photos are often easy to recognize.
The most successful communities combine dedicated staff time to locate illegal VHR’s, education of the
public and owners of VHR requirements, and enforcement procedures backed by a willingness to
enforce.
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 30
x Breckenridge:
o Has one of the more proactive owner outreach programs. Education begins when the Town
Clerk sends all new owners an introductory letter and application form for VHR’s, explaining
the licensing program. A reminder letter on VHR requirements is sent every four years.
o Has an estimated 99% compliance rate from existing owners, in part due to a dedicated
investigative search for illegal rentals several years ago. Listed units were compared with the
license database and “nice” letters were sent to owners regarding requirements. Non-
respondents received a “mean” letter letting them know they needed to respond or they
would be sent to court. For the few that still did not respond, the town’s lawyer sent a
certified letter to the owner, at which time everyone complied.
o Publicized licensing requirements in a newspaper article which made a “big deal” over
unlicensed VHR’s and notified owners that the Town was ramping up enforcement.
o Achieved on-going compliance. About 2,750 units were in compliance in 2011. Only 15 units
listed in 2012 were found not licensed and roughly about five non-compliant units since that
time have been identified each year.
x Steamboat Springs:
o Has an estimated 75% compliance rate with existing VHR license requirements. The City did
a similar push as Breckenridge in 2009 to get existing owners to license VHR properties. A
total of 440 letters were sent to owners without required tax licenses, resulting in 110 new
licenses within a couple of months.
o Sends notice of violation letters to owners if they are advertising without proper licenses.
Violators have 15 days from receipt of the notice of violation letter to submit an application
or remove their advertising. Should they fail to do this they are issued a citation into
municipal court with fines of up to $999 per day, jail time of up to 180 days, or both.
o Relies on complaints from neighbors to locate violators. The finance department keeps a list
of licensed properties, including VHR permitted properties from the community
development department. Monthly updates to this list are provided to the police
department, who responds to complaints. The police department can then notify the
respective departments if a call involves either a legal (or illegal) VHR.
x Mt. Crested Butte has also noticed a difference with consistent tracking of VHR listings. When
research was done every quarter, compliance was near 95%; when research was done “when
available,” compliance dropped to near 85%. When non-compliant properties are found, two letters
may be sent. The first threatens a lien on their property if they do not respond. The second is a
certified letter which includes the intent to lien. If that is ignored, then a lien is filed with the county
based on estimated sales tax.
x Ouray often finds properties through the neighbor complaint process. Owners are educated about
VHR requirements in an attachment sent out periodically with customer utility bills.
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 31
x Some communities have also instituted property manager and realtor seminars regarding VHR
requirements. New owners have approached some communities seeking to short-term rent their
new home in zone where they may not be permitted based on erroneous realtor information.
Education of the real estate community can help with misconceptions.
Revocation of Licenses or Permits
Licenses or permits may be revoked in several CAST participating communities.
x In Park City, violation of the noise ordinance, occupancy loads, failure to use designated off-
street parking, illegal conduct, or any other abuse, which violates any law regarding use or
occupancy of the premises is grounds for revocation. Failure to collect and deposit sales tax is
also a violation of the license and grounds for revocation.
x In Estes Park, the Town Code Compliance Officer manages enforcement efforts of vacation
home regulations. Once a violation is verified, the officer generally attempts to work with the
property owner to address the issues without formal enforcement action. Formal enforcement
efforts can eventually lead to town properties having their license revoked and/or a hearing at
the Estes Park Municipal Court. Violations may occur due to parking, illegal renting of an ADU,
occupancy limit violations, among other violations. The town has only had one revocation,
which was in part due to the unit operating as an illegal bed-and-breakfast as opposed to a VHR.
x Steamboat has a three-strikes policy. If a VHR receives three violations in one year, then the VHR
permit can be revoked for up to two years.
Best Practices
License requirements
Establish License Safety/Inspection, Property Manager/Contact, Advertising, Notice Requirements
x Require property inspection – Breckenridge, Durango, Park City
x Require local Property Manager/Emergency contact – Breckenridge, Park City
x Require permit/license numbers on all advertising – Durango
x Require notice to neighbors of permitted VHR’s – Sonoma County, Petaluma (proposed)
Written notice to neighbors after VHR approval. Provide the terms of the VHR and
owner/manager contact information in case of complaints or problems.
x Post VHR contact information and requirements in VHR unit – Breckenridge
Educates visitors on any parking requirements; trash, noise and nuisance information;
emergency contact requirements; and town contact information.
Fees
Establish fees to cover costs of VHR management – Austin, Napa
x Communities need to develop a targeted system for managing VHR’s and take firm inventory of
staff time and costs required for VHR monitoring, processing and management. This will allow
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 32
communities to develop a budget for VHR oversight and establish fees sufficient to cover the
program.
Explore Variation in Fees Based on Use and/or Unit Type – Santa Fe
x While additional analysis of Colorado statutes is recommended, fee systems similar to Santa Fe’s
could provide for variation in fees for year-round VHR’s compared with residences that are
normally occupied by their owners and only rented short term for two periods per year. There
are no fees for the latter, whereas fees for year-round VHR’s range from $175 for an accessory
dwelling to $350 for a single-family home.
Compliance: Investigation, Education, Enforcement
Dedicate or hire staff to track and manage license compliance – Park City, Austin
Mail new homeowners VHR regulations and license application – Breckenridge, Mt. Crested Butte
x Breckenridge also follows up with a reminder letter every four years.
Publish VHR requirements in newspaper, websites – Breckenridge, Durango
Seminars and education outreach to real estate professionals – Estes Park, Park City
x Can help educate realtors and property managers regarding VHR’s so they can properly inform
their clients as to VHR legality and regulations.
Link complaints to legal and illegal VHR’s - Steamboat
x Have Code Enforcement communicate with VHR tracking departments (planning, finance). Can
help find illegal VHR’s and monitor permitted VHR’s for regulation compliance.
Establish license/permitting enforcement procedures and threaten or use them when necessary –
Breckenridge, Mt. Crested Butte, Austin
Revocation
Make permits/licenses revocable if non-compliant – Steamboat, Estes Park, Santa Fe
x Steamboat has a three-strikes permit policy – three violations in one year and the permit may
be revoked for up to 2 years. Three-strikes gives some certainty to owners and clarity to the city
for enforcement.
x Santa Fe makes revocation mandatory after three-strikes.
x Estes Park has a discretionary revocation policy in the event of a violation.
Potential practices
Increase license fees to mitigate workforce housing impacts.
x No quantification has been done to date to determine the specific impacts VHR’s have on
workforce housing. A nexus study may be required to quantify the link between the impacts on
housing and the fees charged.
Collect VHR unit operating detail on permit/license application
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 33
x Depending upon the complexity of regulations and VHR rental term requirements,
license/permit applications can capture number of bedrooms rented, unit type, times of the
year rented, when owner occupied, etc. to assist with monitoring and evaluate the
appropriateness of potential revisions to regulations.
Educate visitors that VHR’s not showing permit numbers are illegal
x As more communities require permit and license numbers to be shown on all advertising, a
visitor education campaign could help spur compliance from the demand side. Inform visitors
that units not showing a permit number may not meet safety standards and/or may be a scam.
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 44
VI. Neighborhood Impacts
Issues and Emerging Trends
The impacts of VHR’s are widespread. Communities have become alarmed about changes in the
character of their residential neighborhoods as they transition into lodging districts. Familiar faces are
being replaced by transient populations. In many cities, neighbors are outraged and leading the fight
against the proliferation of the industry. In mountain towns where visitors are the mainstay of the
economy, residents and community officials are also concerned about changes in community character
as well as specific disruptions including noise, parking violations, overcrowding and garbage.
Metro Areas React to Neighborhood Concerns
In urban areas, concerns about neighborhood impacts were generally first to get significant attention.
Short-term rentals were often prohibited in residential zones and were thus illegal uses that could not
be licensed and taxed. Boulder is a prime example. When the issue of taxing short-term rentals was
raised several years ago, the City chose not to take action at that time. When complaints lodged by
neighbors in 2014 increased in number and volume, the City’s initial response was to issue 20 cease and
desist letters to known violators of zoning prohibitions. The letters were quickly rescinded when the
magnitude of the violations became better understood. Comprehensive solutions responsive to
neighborhood concerns are now under investigation.
Neighborhoods Organize Across the Country
Neighborhoods are consolidating into organizations with a voice, establishing unified positions on issues
that primarily impact neighborhoods. Citizen-initiated referendums that might prohibit or severely
limiting VHR’s are starting to appear in communities of all sizes. Examples of neighbor groups include:
x Asheville: Coalition of Asheville Neighborhoods
x Los Angeles: Keep Neighborhoods
x New York, San Francisco: ShareBetter
x New York: Westside Neighborhood Alliance
National Group(s) Form to Deal with Issues
At the national level, Neighbors for Overnight Oversight is an online coalition of residents, community
leaders and businesses seeking to protect neighborhoods by supporting regulations and oversight for
the short-term rental market. They work on measures to ensure that VHR’s comply with basic safety
measures to protect consumers and neighbors. They offer an advocacy tool kit and spread the word
about situations when things go wrong. Similar groups may form; change happens quickly in this
industry.
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 45
Hosting Sites Cooperatively Defend Rights
As referenced in the Regulations section of this report, hosting sites have reacted quickly to initiatives by
citizen groups to place limits on their operations and demand accountability. They are doing so in a well-
funded, cooperative manner. Each of the top hosting sites is a powerhouse in its own right; together
they are formidable and will make initiatives at the metropolitan, state and federal level a hard fight.
The extent to which they may attempt to influence neighborhood protection efforts in smaller towns is
uncertain.
Code Enforcement and Local Property Managers Effective Tools in Mountain Towns
Local governments that permit VHR’s have found a code enforcement approach effective at dealing with
nuisance conditions, such as excessive noise, parking and trash. In some towns like Breckenridge,
nuisance control regulations that have been part of the municipal code for years are being dusted off
and used increasingly to mitigate adverse impacts on neighborhoods resulting from VHR’s. In other
towns like Durango, new codes have been created to specifically address VHR’s in neighborhoods.
A tool adopted by many towns already and under consideration in others is requiring that VHR’s have a
local property manager/contact on call to respond to neighborhood complaints (see Regulations section
for details).
CAST Survey Findings
Concerns About Neighborhoods
While most mountain towns first directed their VHR efforts on tax collection and licensing,
neighborhood impacts have come to the forefront of policy and operational considerations. Among the
10 CAST study participants, Durango was the exception to this trend, focusing first on neighborhood
impacts then designing regulations and licensing requirements aimed at preserving their residential
areas.
Concern is higher for impacts on community character and neighborhood change than on specific
nuisances although parking and noise are not far behind.
Neighborhood Concern Ratings
1 = minor concern; 5 = major concern
Concern Avg. Rating
Community character 3.6
Neighborhood change 3.6
Parking 3.1
Noise 3.0
Safety 2.9
Overcrowding 2.7
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 46
Complaints
On average, 8.5 complaints were received last year by the six CAST participants that reported on
complaints. Four of the 10 did not report any complaints in the past year, due at least in part to the lack
of a standard complaint processing system.
Parking is the chief complaint followed by noise. Parking is particularly problematic in towns like Mt.
Crested Butte where on street parking is not allowed. Complaints about VHR’s where they are not
allowed topped the list in Durango. Exterior lights being left on overnight and for long periods were also
mentioned.
VHR-Related Complaints Received
Nature of Complaints
Parking 22%
Noise 19%
Too many occupants 15%
Garbage 12%
Other: Illegal rentals, exterior lights left on 47%
Total* 115%
*Total exceeds 100% since multiple reasons sometimes cited.
How complaints are received and handled varies widely. In terms of receiving complaints:
x Town staff receives all or most complaints in Jackson, Mt. Crested Butte, Ouray and Park City;
x Elected officials have been contacted most often in Durango;
x Law enforcement usually gets the calls in Steamboat.
Towns learn of zoning/ordinance violations and other causes for complaint through:
x Neighbors -- the main source of complaints;
x Patrolling/observation is done by three of the 10 towns;
x Websites: “Overnight Oversight” or similar neighborhood watch has been a source in a couple
of the communities;
x Facebook – While not noted as a source for complaints about VHR’s in CAST towns, Facebook
has been a forum for community interaction on related issues. In the small community of Pitkin,
Colorado (about 70 residents) Facebook is the place where heated debates have occurred.
x Property managers who handle legal short-term rentals are a source of complaints about VHR’s
where they are not allowed.
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 47
Best Practices
Practices related to neighborhood impacts are grouped into two categories: Outreach/Education and
Nuisance Mitigation.
Outreach and Education
Website – Durango
x Page on City’s website covers regulations, history, recent news and opportunities for input with a
link to map showing permitted VHR’s.
Mapping of Permitted VHR’s – Durango
x A map of all the permitted VHR’s in the City that can be viewed by citizens with complaints
submitted directly to community development staff via the website.
Neighbor Notices – Sonoma County and Petaluma (proposed)
x Letters notifying that a permit has been issued and containing contact information on mandatory
property manager located within a 1-hour drive and on call 24/7 given to all neighbors within 100
feet of a VHR.
Stakeholder Roundtables – Durango
x Two discussions supported by informative PowerPoint presentations with realtors, property owners,
vacation rental managers, neighborhood advocates, code enforcement staff, downtown HOA
representatives, and lodging industry representatives.
Chamber Outreach – Breckenridge
x Meetings held for education about rules and procedures.
Newspaper Notices and Articles – Breckenridge
x Published notices in the newspaper to educate public/property owners about what is allowed.
Community Engagement – Durango
x A community meeting held on neighborhood issues publicized through multiple outlets including
traditional media, social media, the City website and City e-mail listservs. Comments became
extensive; Durango’s staff recommends developing a system for organizing comments from the
outset of any public education process.
Complaint Handling Process – Durango
x Website and other forms of public outreach channel comments/inquiries/complaints through to a
designated planner; one person handles/routes complaints other than those needing immediate
police response.
Educate Visitors – Breckenridge
x Create a brochure on the Town’s noise, parking, occupant, visitor and garbage regulations
associated with VHR’s and require that it be posted in all VHR units.
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 48
Nuisance Mitigation
Occupancy Limits
x Estes Park: A maximum of two persons per bedroom plus two persons with an 8-person maximum.
Children under 3 exempted.
x Sonoma County: Two persons per bedroom plus two up to a 12-person maximum subject to design
load of septic system or as allowed through granting of a Use Permit.
x Steamboat Springs: 1 person per 200 SF.
Visitor Limits – Sonoma County
x A maximum of 6 visitors are allowed in addition to the maximum permitted, which equals up to 18
persons in homes with 5 or more bedrooms. Exceptions are allowed on the national holidays of
Easter, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve and Christmas.
Outdoor Party Limits
x Steamboat Springs: Outdoor activities are prohibited at which more than twice the number of
allowed occupants are in attendance, which equates to a maximum of 16 guests staying in the unit
and no more than 32 persons at an outdoor party.
x Sonoma County: Special events, outdoor events, lawn parties, weddings and similar activities are
not allowed at any time at VHR’s in Rural Residential and Urban Residential zones.
Trash Management – Grand Lake
x The Pay as You Throw (PAYT) program involves the Town offering plastic bags for $3.00 (25 Gal.) and
$4.00 (40 Gal.) that can be thrown in 5 animal-resistant dumpsters located by the Public Works
Department shop in town.
Parking
x Sonoma County: 1 space minimum for up to 2 bedrooms; 2 spaces for 3 or 4 bedrooms and at least
3 spaces for larger units, which must demonstrate adequate parking.
x Breckenridge and Grand Lake: No motor vehicles can be parked on the lawn or landscaped areas or
in the public street or right-of-way adjacent to the accommodation unit, and no person can stay
overnight in any motor vehicle which is parked at an accommodation unit.
x Santa Fe: No recreational vehicles can be parked on the site or on the street.
x Steamboat Springs: Maximum of 4 cars outside of a garage.
Noise Limits
x Palm Springs: No outdoor amplified sound is permitted at any time when short-term rented.
x Sonoma County: Outdoor amplified sound is not permitted at any time unless through a Cultural or
Special Event Permit or Use Permit.
General Nuisance
x Lake Tahoe Basin: All-encompassing but vague “Occupants cannot create unreasonable noise or
disturbances, engage in disorderly conduct or violate provisions of state law regarding noise,
overcrowding, alcohol or drugs.”
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 49
VII. Workforce Housing
Issues and Emerging Trends
Concerns have increased within the last year over the impacts that VHR’s are having on workforce
housing, particularly its availability and cost. Communities have not done much to date to quantify the
impacts but seem to be increasingly interested in options they might pursue to preserve and provide
affordable housing for their workforce.
Loss of Long-Term Rentals
The conversion of rental units that have historically housed employees has become a major concern in
mountain towns. Availability of workforce rental housing in all inter-mountain resort communities
became very scarce in 2014. In 2014, apartment vacancy rates were extremely low -- less than 1% in
many areas. In some towns like Jackson, the lack of rental housing has been called a crisis. Conversion of
long-term rentals occupied by locals into VHR’s has often been anecdotally cited as the reason for such a
dramatic shift in rental availability.
Rent Increases
The economic principles of supply and demand have been functioning well in mountain towns. With the
decrease in the rental supply, due at least in part to conversion into VHR’s, rents have been rising. At
one apartment complex near Vail, rents increased by over $500/month in 2014. In response to the steep
jump in rents in many Colorado mountain communities efforts are underway to develop additional
apartments in Buena Vista, Breckenridge, Crested Butte, Edwards, Eagle, Mountain Village, Telluride,
Salida and Steamboat Springs.
Large Cities Also Concerned
The concern about loss of long-term rentals is not isolated to mountain resort communities. A March
2015 report titled Airbnb, Rising Rents and the Housing Shortage in Los Angeles by LAANE, a group that
supports “a new economy for all” cited the loss of over 7,300 long-term rental units. This estimate has
been widely quoted in publications throughout the country, reflecting the growing concern over this
issue.
Using Workforce Housing as Vacation Home Rentals
Some residents of deed-restricted workforce housing have rented their homes or spare bedrooms
through online hosting sites. These scattered incidents have typically been reported by neighbors who
also live in nearby homes with deed restrictions prohibiting the practice.
In Aspen, some community officials are in favor of allowing residents of restricted workforce housing to
use their homes as vacation rentals, advertising through hosting sites and producing much needed extra
income. The housing authority’s guidelines and deed restrictions explicitly prohibit such use because, as
the housing authority director explained, “it undermines the spirit and intent of the workforce housing
program.” The housing authority’s outside legal counsel has strongly advised against permitting this
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 50
activity. Aspen is the only mountain town identified to date in which changes to regulations prohibiting
the use of workforce housing as vacation home rentals may be considered.
Quantifying the Situation
While concerns over the impacts that the proliferation of VHR’s has had on housing for the workforce,
few attempts have been made to quantify the impacts. Evidence is anecdotal but many communities
feel loss of units is significant since, as the town manager of Estes Park indicated, “It is so easy to have
vacation rentals and the profits are substantial, that many people are choosing to utilize their properties
as vacation rentals, thereby taking at least a portion of these off of the long term rental market.” (sic)
Impacts on Accessory Units
One impact that is particularly hard to track is the use of accessory units at VHR’s. Construction of deed
restricted accessory dwelling units are often encouraged by municipalities though incentives such as
density bonuses and fee waivers/reductions. The units can provide housing for the workforce, retirees
and family members as their needs change. Petaluma is one community concerned about their ADU’s or
“granny flats” becoming VHR’s.
CAST Survey Findings
Loss of Long-Term Rentals
The loss of housing previously rented by members of the local workforce on a long-term basis has
become the top concern in participating CAST communities, edging out tax collection. Communities
rated this an average of 3.9 (on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being “major concern”). Concern about
conversion of long-term rentals that housed employees into short-term vacation home rentals is
particularly high in Breckenridge, Crested Butte, Frisco, Jackson and Park City. Steamboat Springs is the
only town surveyed where concern about this issue is low.
Tracking Conversion from Long-Term to Short-Term Rentals
While the concern is widespread, only two of the 10 CAST towns surveyed have tracked or attempted to
identify residential units that were occupied by local residents but are now short-termed.
x Breckenridge maintains a property database used primarily for its RETT that classifies each
residential unit according to its primary use. Long-term rentals have held steady at 9% to 10% of
the inventory, despite fluctuations due to new construction and conversion into VHR’s.
x Durango gains knowledge about the past use of units through its VHR permitting system. While
the system has been in place for less than a year, staff estimates roughly half are out-of-town
owners or professional property managers. The other half are local homeowners who travel and
want the option to rent the house while gone, have a 2nd unit on their property that they want
to rent, or want to short-term rent a room in the house. This system does not track change in
use.
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 51
Using Deed Restricted Workforce Housing as VHR’s
Incidents where illegal use of deed restricted workforce housing as VHR’s has been very limited. Only
Jackson and Frisco reported known incidents. None of the 10 towns reported requests by residents of
restricted workforce housing for permission to rent their homes or spare bedrooms short term.
Despite few reported incidents, concern about the potential use of workforce housing as VHR’s is
relatively high, ranking 6th out of 16 issues tested in the CAST survey. While staff are aware of the
concern, most feel compliance with prohibitions will not be problematic because neighbors will report
violations and annual compliance monitoring will detect unauthorized rental of units.
Best Practices
Tracking Conversion of Employee Housing Into VHR’s
Real Estate Database – Breckenridge
x The finance department maintains a database developed for tracking real estate transfer tax
(RETT). New owners are contacted when units are sold to determine change in use.
Housing Census – Crested Butte
x The Town Planner has historically conducted a census on the use/occupancy of every
residential unit in the community. This tool has been helpful on many tasks related to
workforce housing and could be used to track loss of employee housing. It has documented
that short-term rentals have increased from 5.1% of total housing units in 2000 to 15.8% in
2015, with a growth rate – times faster than the growth in housing.
Prohibiting Use of Workforce Housing as VHR’s
Deed Restriction Provisions – Breckenridge
x Only “qualified occupants” who are employed in Summit County can reside in units, which
prohibits renting the unit or individual bedrooms to visitors. Non-paying guests are allowed.
Renting to roommates who are employed in Summit County is also allowed.
Web Site Notice - Aspen
x The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority web site has in bold, red typeface, “Under NO
circumstances are you allowed to rent your deed restricted home or room out through
VRBO, Airbnb or equivalent.”
Attachment D
June 2015
Rees/WSW/RRC 52
Potential Practices
License Check for Housing Compliance
x Require sign off by housing agency/department in charge of administering workforce
housing on VHR’s license/permit applications.
Tracking System Crosscheck
x Provide addresses and photos of restricted workforce housing to staff who license and track
VHR’s.
Allocate VHR Revenue to Housing
x To fund replacement housing and units needed by growing workforce, allocate tax revenues into an
affordable housing fund. A proposal to do this in under consideration in Nashville.
Replace Lost Housing Units
x Develop goals and plans for workforce housing development that take into account loss of housing
through conversion into VHR’s.
Attachment D