Archive for Tuesday, October 27, 2009

City to revisit vacation home rentals

  • Email
  • Post a comment
  • Print
  • Share

Advertisement

The Steamboat Springs City Council reluctantly has re-opened an issue that has fueled clashes between homeowners and property managers for years.

The persistence of the latter group has paid off. After being told the city was too busy reviewing Steamboat 700 to consider changes to its ordinance regulating vacation home rentals, property managers attended the first council meeting after the annexation was approved to renew their pleas.

Although council members agreed to revisit a few provisions in the ordinance that may not be working well or as intended, City Council President Loui Antonucci stressed Monday that the city doesn't intend to review the entire issue.

"I don't want to go back to square one," Antonucci said. Council members "were all in agreement that we needed to : confront it. : But I don't want to open the whole can of worms."

Vacation home rentals are residential homes that are rented to short-term vacationers and sometimes used for private functions. An ordinance passed in August 2007 regulating the tourism-related industry was the subject of quasi-judicial hearings and numerous lengthy meetings in 2006 and 2007. It replaced a 2001 ordinance with one more demanding of vacation rental owners and operators.

Unwilling to relive the entire debate, the city has made only small changes to submittal requirements for vacation rental site plans since the ordinance was passed. At last week's council meeting, local property managers Suzie Spiro and Robin Craigen asked for a more comprehensive review and said the ordinance unduly burdens property owners and managers who follow the rules.

"We are being harassed," Spiro said, "and you just aren't doing anything about places that are operating illegally. : People operating with total disregard are getting off for free."

On Monday, city Director of Planning and Community Development Tom Leeson disagreed and said the ordinance "seems to be working fine." He said the city receives a small number of complaints about vacation home rentals so enforcement efforts are geared toward identifying properties in rental listings and on Web sites that are not registered with the city.

Craigen said one of his Burgess Creek Road neighbors is "hell-bent on catching vacation home rentals out of compliance" and hiked onto national forest land to get a picture of cars in the driveway at one of his properties. Craigen said he embarrassingly had to contact a chef and former guests to get statements that led to a charge of parking violations being dropped.

The issues to be revisited by the city are the fees associated with the ordinance, its parking regulations and its requirement for an access agreement signed by all owners whose properties must be passed on private roads to access a vacation home.

Property managers have said the access agreement is excessive and sometimes impossible to obtain when there are a dozen or more people living across the world who own property on a private road.

Craigen asked that limits on the number of cars that can be parked at a vacation home rental be dropped and that the ordinance simply state that all cars must be parked on the rental property.

Spiro argued that there is no accounting in place to justify a $500 application fee and $50 annual renewal fee for vacation home rentals. The ordinance states the fees shall not "provide a sum greater than the cost incurred by the city to administer" the ordinance.

City Manager Jon Roberts said Monday that city staff intends to present council members by the end of the year with a report analyzing the issues and making recommendations.

Comments

steamboatsprings ( anonymous ) says...

I am glad to see this being reviewed. Vacation home rentals are an important service in a ski town. They should keep high standards and work with neighbors but shouldn't be subject to more than is necessary regulation wise.

October 27, 2009 at 6:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

greenwash ( anonymous ) says...

especially with every other house for sale or rent.

its goiing to be a long winter if you survive on commissions.

October 27, 2009 at 7:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

snowbow ( anonymous ) says...

Having a hotel in your neighborhood? This is an issue of degree. Rentals that can sleep eight are quite different than a monstrosity that can sleep over twenty. What is the cut off point? Hotels and other lodging operations must adhere to safety and handicap access codes do these nightly rentals? Where do you draw the line? As a way to finance second homes this has been a huge marketing tool for Steamboats property salesmen. There will be stomping and yelling from the Steamboat chamber if there is even a sniff of regulation. So as usual nothing will change. Tourists and second homeowners come first, full time residents come last.

October 27, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Beancounter ( anonymous ) says...

The comments above seem to remind me that until one has lived around one of the egregious violators it's hard to comprehend how disruptive some VHR operators have been to residential neighborhoods. Unfortunately, I can testify from personal experience. Yup, it's those guys who violate the neighborhood "norms" that have created the need for regulation. Hmmm, does this sound familiar with what's going on in the general business world?

October 27, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

addlip2U ( anonymous ) says...

If VHR operators adhered to laws and did not disrupt the residential neighborhood, there would not be such an outcry from neighbors.

Move the VHR operators into the proper hotel/motel zoning district and we will not have any problems. The traffic generated by service vehicles and unruly short term rentals in a residential neighborhood is overwhelming. When do we stop VHR overpowering the neighborhood? There is more to life than profit.....:) it is called a tranquility and a life style - the reason we live in a residential neighborhood.

VHR operators need to stop whining about how much business they generate, at what cost to the residents? We live here too. Put a business in a business area where it belongs, not into residential area.

October 27, 2009 at 3:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Scott_Wedel ( Scott Wedel ) says...

The central issue is that VHR can be such a complete exception to single family residential zoning that applies to their neighbors.

SB actually defines single family residential as more than 3 adults only if all are related. So I would not be allowed to let a struggling friend's family move into my house, but a VHR can be rented to multiple families.

As a resident in a single family neighborhood, I would not be allowed to rent my house for a private party. VHR's can.

October 27, 2009 at 10:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Post a comment (Requires free registration)

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.

Return to top of page