Short Term Rental (STR)

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

With the proliferation of vacation ownership and nightly rentals, City Council is interested in understanding the topic more in depth and how this matter is or is not impacting the community as it pertains to long-term rental housing, neighborhood character, sales & lodging tax collection, safety and enforcement.

What is a Short-Term Rental?

  • Lodging and Accommodations uses occurring within dwelling units.

Lodging Accommodations uses include:

  • Sleeping or housing establishments intended to be occupied on a short-term, transient basis.
  • Payment for occupancy is typically on a daily or weekly basis, and an average length of stay is 30 days or less.
  • Includes the uses of hotels, hostels, vacation home rentals, vacation rentals, and bed & breakfasts.
  • Defined by the Community Development Code (CDC) as commercial land uses

The CDC defines several Short-Term Rental uses:

  • Vacation Home Rental (VHR) = Single-Family home or duplex unit; the entire unit is rented
  • Vacation Rental = multiple-family unit; entire unit
  • Bed & Breakfast = SF home; owner/operator occupied; 2+ guestrooms*
    • *does not include Rental of 1 bedroom in resident-occupied dwelling unit
  • Temporary Short-Term Rental = SF home or duplex unit; entire unit; limited term and occurrence, Limited use, limited districts, no permit required

Short Term Rentals = all of the above

With the proliferation of vacation ownership and nightly rentals, City Council is interested in understanding the topic more in depth and how this matter is or is not impacting the community as it pertains to long-term rental housing, neighborhood character, sales & lodging tax collection, safety and enforcement.

What is a Short-Term Rental?

  • Lodging and Accommodations uses occurring within dwelling units.

Lodging Accommodations uses include:

  • Sleeping or housing establishments intended to be occupied on a short-term, transient basis.
  • Payment for occupancy is typically on a daily or weekly basis, and an average length of stay is 30 days or less.
  • Includes the uses of hotels, hostels, vacation home rentals, vacation rentals, and bed & breakfasts.
  • Defined by the Community Development Code (CDC) as commercial land uses

The CDC defines several Short-Term Rental uses:

  • Vacation Home Rental (VHR) = Single-Family home or duplex unit; the entire unit is rented
  • Vacation Rental = multiple-family unit; entire unit
  • Bed & Breakfast = SF home; owner/operator occupied; 2+ guestrooms*
    • *does not include Rental of 1 bedroom in resident-occupied dwelling unit
  • Temporary Short-Term Rental = SF home or duplex unit; entire unit; limited term and occurrence, Limited use, limited districts, no permit required

Short Term Rentals = all of the above


Please provide comments, concerns or ideas for the Community and City Council to consider.

You need to be signed in to comment in this Guest Book. Click here to Sign In or Register to get involved

We live in a historically non-STR neighborhood. How can we best assure that it remains that way? I'd like to see clear line of sight to providing input and comments to any overlay that is developed.

Avromfeinberg 3 months ago

Please leave it to the HOA's to decide what is best for their neighborhoods. Any rules you create should allow for HOA's to opt in/out. Please no broad brush/overlay approaches.

ffrealtyllc 3 months ago

Please accept the following comments from my wife and me in opposition to continuing to allow short term rentals in the Fairway Meadows area—specifically Delta Queen Ct. off of Steamboat Blvd. We will not reiterate all the other various good arguments raised in opposition to short term rentals in our residential neighborhood, nor repeat the arguments raised by us and other neighbors on our block a few years ago. Those objections went through the Plan Commission and your Council, although the later hearing did not proceed since the Denver owners running the rental business did not bother to appear at the scheduled meeting and ultimately sold the property. Our reason for not restating is not to in any way diminish those arguments but to hopefully get you to read this objection, without grouping it in the “same old” argument group, differentiated only by names and addresses.

In addition to those noise, parking, traffic, garbage, partying and other significant issues short term rentals introduce into our quiet, well maintained residential neighborhood, we would like to add another. Tourists, especially those wanting to rent large houses near the mountain usually have a lot of children accompanying the families sharing the home. While as grandparents we certainly have no problem with children, we do have serious concerns about unsupervised children on bicycles, scooters, playing ball and other outside games in the summer, as well as sledding, climbing on snow piles, throwing snowballs and other outdoor winter activities, especially when they are on nearby property. Neighboring homeowners may well have liability for any child or other stranger injured while playing or otherwise trespassing on their property. This may not sound like a major problem but we remind you it is in addition to the more obvious noise, parking, garbage, trailers with recreational vehicles being cleaned, loaded and unloaded, blocking traffic on the cul-de-sac, along with the loud and late night partying by people who are often intoxicated, foul mouthed and belligerent to requests to “please keep it down.” You would not consider it an insignificant problem if you are a named defendant in injury litigation.

We were extremely disappointed to read that all of the participating Council members were in favor of short term rentals in our neighborhood. Aside from wondering if those members feel the same about their neighborhoods, we feel that little consideration is being given to neighborhood character, let alone zoning. When we dealt with the business owners of the above mentioned property a few years ago, we found that the property was purchased for the sole purpose of running a business on our block, one that encouraged large groups.

When we contacted the then “enforcement” officer we realized that the only concern of the City at that time was obtaining the $500 application fee. We were told that the covenants and bylaws of our HOA had no bearing whatsoever and that complaints were to be directed to the police, not her department. Not only was nothing done for the neighboring objecting homeowners, we were made to feel like we should not get in the way of the licensing income stream for the City, and not to bother the office. When we inquired about whether this business was paying the required taxes to the City, we were basically told it was none of our business and further that the City had no way of knowing or enforcing those requirements. When we appeared before the Plan Commission, all we heard was how contentious the issue was at some previous time period and basically that there was no interest in revisiting the problems. When we asked about the purpose of the notice given to neighbors within 500’ of the property seeking the license for short term rentals, we were basically told it was just a requirement of the Code—with no attention whatsoever given to the arguments made in opposition.

We would also like you to consider that there is no compelling reason to “grandfather” current licensees in our subdivision. A reasonable “adjustment” period could be given to those currently operating under a license from the City with a notice that licenses in certain areas will not be renewed. That “adjustment” period could be one more year of short term rentals, but only if the licensee can show that there have been no complaints filed with the police or others and, even that applicable taxes have been on the short term rental income. If not, no renewal in the designated neighborhoods. Those property owners could then do long term rentals which would benefit our entire community or sell the property and buy another “business” in an appropriate area of the City. In our opinion, Fairway Meadows is not an appropriate area and that it is the City’s job to follow its own zoning designations and maintain certain residential neighborhoods. The City should not continue to be complicit in nor encourage the further spread of residential neighborhood destruction by the licensing process without Code enforcement. Now is the time to correct past mistakes not repeat them.

Arguments that the income is needed by some homeowners to acquire/keep the property is and should be of no significance whatsoever. Neither the neighbors nor the City has, nor should have any responsibility to people who can always consider long term rentals or sale of the property. The neighborhood should not have to negatively change for people who want to run a business in a well maintained residential area. Steamboat has numerous properties available for tourists without destruction of the few quiet residential neighborhoods left in what is about to become the second largest ski area in the State of Colorado.

If the City feels the need to prioritize real estate brokers, property management companies and/or business persons whose only concern is money over locals who simply want to maintain the character and quality of their neighborhoods, then in our opinion, this community is in trouble. As Council members, we respectfully ask that you do your job and limit short term rentals to areas designed, maintained and policed for tourists. Unlimited licensing (even with renewal requirements and fees), unenforceable rules and untraceable taxing do not help nor preserve the Steamboat Springs community. Thank you.

Frank & Jean Ariano
Steamboat Springs, CO 80487

fariano 3 months ago

The gentleman who showed a single page of complaints on the last council meeting regarding DOCUMENTED Short Term Rental (STR) complaints has nailed it on the head. Whereas it seems a vocal minority have complained about “trash” or “change in neighborhood character”, this initiative seems to be sorely lacking in data. In light of this, does permitting actually make sense? I understand fines may be appropriate for poorly managed properties, but as ski trips become more out of the range for the average young family, do you now want to place a permit fee and noise monitoring costs to the already accelerating rental costs?
The STR problem does not address the LTR issue. An LTR typically will not cover the mortgage for those of us not independently wealthy/ bought property in cash; or if we do charge enough to cover the mortgage, the average local worker couldn’t afford it in today’s market.
I would propose to evaluate how many DOCUMENTED complaints over the past 12 months on STRs have been reported, and whether or not we are making a mountain out of a molehill (pun intended); moreover, if permits are really necessary rather than just occasional fines for the outliers who have poorly vetted or poorly managed STRs.
I would also echo that the “overlay plan” is arbitrary, random, and capricious in whom is or is not allowed to STR.

Horace 3 months ago

My wife and I bought a house in 2019 in Eaglepointe to one day realize our dreams to move to Steamboat in the next year or two from Denver. These are not multi million dollar houses and Airbnb has helped up get closer to this dream. We are fully compliant right now but if I heard it correctly in the 'workshop' the City, without due process or proper notice, intends on 'downzoning' my property to preclude short term rentals citing an affordable housing crisis. I still don't know whether or not I need to advocate for myself. I have a great relationship with my neighbors and my reviews speak for themselves so I do not think my actions have an adverse impact on the community. In fact, thousands of dollars of city revenue can directly and indirectly attributed to my unit.

It was absolutely mind blowing watching council members drawing lines in that meeting with the term "attainability" being used dozens of times in the fictitious line drawing. What is attainable? Not being a multimillion dollar ski in/ski out home?? Why should the ultra rich enjoy better zoning and in turn better appreciation/value than me. Doesn't sound like equitable treatment under the law to me.

This is a clear cut case of inverse condemnation. This war path is not being applied in a fair, equitable, or justifiable manner. I hate to be this hostile but please understand this is part of my livelihood. The primary self stated purpose of this effort is to make housing more affordable or effectively or legislatively adversely impact my property value. So is it the position of the council to force me into a position to where I lose my dream? I don't know but I can confirm that I will be sadly forced into a position to join a class action lawsuit to protect myself such policies.

I fully expect everyone to do better than what I witnessed last week.

kpbronski 3 months ago

As a young family currently in the the competitive market for a single family home we are thankful for the council's implementation of the STR moratorium. It is tough on local families that have to compete with other buyers that would only be able to afford these properties with the income stream that STRs provide. This artificially increases the the number of viable buyers in an already low inventory environment.

STRs not only affect the long term rental situation for local service workers, but also crowd out local professionals looking to buy in traditional family neighborhoods. Left unchecked we will see continued pressure on the ability to fill job openings from restaurants to hospitals as well as the destruction traditional family neighborhoods. Hopefully these types of businesses will not be allowed in residentially zoned neighborhoods moving forward.

VB Sturm 3 months ago

Having been an AirBnB host at various times while living in my dwelling as a convenient source of supplemental income I urge the City Council to look more comprehensively at the issue of housing scarcity. The distinction between a VHR, a Vacation Rental and a B&B or a Temporary Short Term Rental is critical. The latter being the type of rental that would not otherwise be available as housing. These are essential sources of revenue for members of the community and an opportunity for hosting guests to town. A comprehensive look at the issue would place as much responsibility for the housing shortage on short-term occupancy residences -- those properties throughout town and the valley that are vacation homes occupied by the owners a limited amount of time yearly. Please do not place all the responsibility on the homeowners who rely on their guest bedrooms as supplemental income without also addressing the issue of short-term occupancy.

SteamboatCPT 3 months ago

I own a condo in Steamboat but live in Denver. We love coming to Steamboat to hike, ski, bike, raft, shop and eat out. However, to make this work, I have to use it as a short term rental. We are in a building with 12 units most of which, if not all, are available as STRs. I am very concerned about the possibility that I would no longer be allowed to rent the unit. If you pass the prohibition on STRs in my area, I will have to sell the property. I guess that wouldn't be too bad because the value has gone up in the two and 1/2 years I have owned it but I don't think the unit would be affordable for the lower paid workers in Steamboat. If that is the goal, I don't think you will accomplish that by forcing many of us to sell our properties.
I am fine with getting a license and registering. We have never had any complaints of any sort from neighbors so would be happy to have someone monitor complaints against the unit. We have a 24 hour contact person so that is not a problem. Please impose these sorts of reasonable requirements but don't pass a complete ban on these types of properties. We are good neighbors and we support the local economy. thank you. Beth McCann

Ehmccann 3 months ago

I oppose an overlay zone prohibiting STR's. I would encourage Steamboat to look at alternatives such as additional requirements, enforcement and fees on the rental properties. Eliminating STR's damages the property rights of thousands of homeowners. A large amount of these property owners purchased their properties with the desire or need to rent out the property in order to help with costs. Those affected will not be able to rent their properties and will have difficultly selling them in the future. Prohibiting STR's will not encourage me to rent long term, instead it will encourage me to sell my property. I do not think that you are prepared for the repercussions that will come with this decision.

mererjh 3 months ago

I live on the East Coast and have had my log home in Steamboat near the ski mountain for now 20 years, and I consider Steamboat my second home, the place I’d like to retire to. The reason for that is not just the beauty of the Rockies but the sense of community and respect for rights of all folks in the very best American tradition. That includes the rights of folks to be and stay healthy by wearing masks during a pandemic, the open arms we have always felt in good and bad times, and the respect of property rights. This overlay proposal and expansive regulation runs so contrary to what makes Steamboat great. I hope it is rejected out of hand. It is wrong-headed and a detriment to the community. Sensible regulations like a complaint hotline and follow-up with teeth is far better than wholesale prohibition in certain areas. I really think you will regret it over the long haul. At a minimum, an incremental approach towards dealing with bona fide complaints first is the best way to get a true handle on whether this is a meaningful issue that requires more regulation. I may not be there year round to make all the noise you are responding to, but I have dutifully paid the same taxes as the loud on this issue for now 20 years, so please credit this single voice fully please. Michael Egge

Megge 3 months ago

Dear Community and City Council,

Though our professions require that we live on the front range much of the time, we also call Steamboat Springs home. The ability to use our property as an STR is a fundamental part of our ability to own our Steamboat residence. As such:

We oppose an overlay zone prohibiting short term rentals without first trying more incremental levels of enforcement and regulation. And, use enforcement on the few bad actors instead of strip property rights of thousands.

We support the regulation of STR in Steamboat Springs as follows

End the moratorium on VHR permits at the second reading on August 24th
Register and License ALL STRs
Establish life safety standards and require a 24-hour local contact
Establish a 24-hour Hotline to monitor complaints and begin enforcement
Gather and analyze data on all STR uses including location, complaints, sales tax revenue for a minimum of 12 months. Identify property values and local density per street/neighborhood vs. large 2-mile areas and come up with a more reasonable overlay if needed in non-HOA developments
Review the need for additional action

We DO NOT support:

An overlay zone that eliminates STRs without due process without considering data of local density, property values, complaints, citizen preference, and active HOAs
An overlay zone that damages property rights without cause
Decision making that is not supported by data and research.

Thank you for your consideration

ESH 3 months ago

I support the regulation of Short Term Rentals (STR) in Steamboat Springs as follows:

- End the moratorium on VHR permits at the second reading on August 24th
- Register and License ALL STRs
- Establish life safety standards and require a 24-hour local contact
- Establish a 24-hour Hotline to monitor complaints and begin enforcement
- Gather and analyze data on all STR uses including location, complaints, sales tax revenue for a minimum of 12 months. Identify property values and local density per street/neighborhood vs. large 2-mile areas and come up with a more reasonable overlay if needed in non-HOA developments
- Review the need for additional action

I DO NOT support:

- An overlay zone that eliminates STRs without due process without considering data of local density, property values, complaints, citizen preference, and active HOAs
- An overlay zone that damages property rights without cause
- Decision making that is not supported by data and research

azlutz 3 months ago

I wrote a long letter but after reviewing the below comments I've decided to just list out my concerns/thoughts.
1. Any business running in a residential area should be owner occupied.
2. The non related people in a rental was recently increased from 3-5 but this doesn't apply to short term rentals. So in my neighborhood the rental up the street can have up to 8 non related people in it and a different 8 every few days. That doesn't make sense.
3. People have already clearly listed all the reasons why having short term renters in residential neighborhoods degrades community and neighborhood safety. I agree.
4. My young adult children in other towns across the US are trying to get into the housing market. They have tracked when affordable houses come on the market, they sell in less than 24 hrs and then within 2-4 weeks show up on the short term/vacation rental website. Businesses are running a business so have the capital and time to respond to new sale posting immediately while the individual consumer is busy at work and may need more time to respond and a more nuanced financial response. How can we have businesses competing with individuals for residential housing????
5. I thought the survey was useless as it did not ask if the survey taker owns a short term rental, or if there is a str in their neighborhood and/or have they had problems or successes.
6. I support the overlay approach as clearly there are areas that are predominantly rentals and those that are not.
7. I support grandfathering in existing str.
7. I support owner occupied short term rentals anywhere.
8. If there is to be a company that oversees short term rentals and provide customer service/problem solving it should be fully funded by the businesses running the rentals not the tax payers.

Thank you

Shelly Harris

bluesage 3 months ago

I was not present at the last City Council meeting, but I have watched the recording online. I listened to public comments presented and until very end of the meeting I was under impression that City wants to address complaints regarding short term rental properties. I have to say that I was bit surprised as for most concerns presented City already has means in place. I am general contractor and I had pleasure more than once to talk with City's Code Enforcer Officer and Police Officers. Either one would quickly respond to the complaint regarding noise or parking. Sometimes complaint was valid, sometimes it was not. I did not have to talk to anyone regarding the trash, but it happened to me and my neighbors that bear gets into trash can and we had to pick it up. There is ordinance in place that don't allow anyone in the City to have trash flying all over the street, short term rental or not. If these issues are such a big problem why are we not enforcing rules we already have? In my neighborhood on Clubhouse drive there are several neighbors that complain that people are speeding. They are very vocal on HOA meetings and typically blame short term renters from adjacent neighborhoods. Police department has temporarily installed radar and determined that there was no significant speeding present through the neighborhood. City has means to enforce its rules and not all complaints are valid ones.

While listening public comments I have learned that there are devices that measure noise level in the homes. This seams like pretty easy and straight forward way to further enforce noise ordinance. My question is why are we not addressing noise issue associated with long term renters at the same time and in the same manner? I have personally had bad neighbors where I had issues with noise and strong marijuana odor. As a matter a fact because of Marijuana we moved from the condo we owned as I did not want my kids to smell it. We have moved to Clubhouse drive, in the neighborhood where HOA prohibits short term rentals. There are plenty of areas for people to live and have issues with long term neighbors. With short term neighbors any issues go away within days, with long term neighbors any issues last long time. I had a neighbor who thought it is OK to let dogs out into my yard and not pick up after them.

Like I said through the most of the meeting it appeared City wants to regulate short term rental like vacation home rentals are regulated. It appears that everyone supports regulating this segment and having property managers or owners accountable for their guests. Some public comments addressed affordability of the residences in short term rental pool and that more expensive ones are not good candidates for long term rentals. I would strongly agree with this. Two million dollar home will not help housing shortage.

I am very pleased with City Staff's approach to the issue and their requests for direction from the City Council. Presentation they made was very informative and easy to understand. Council's approach to the issue was disappointing at best. I would hope that such important decision as location based restrictions would be thought through before hand. Council members appeared not prepared and some members appeared to be pushing personal agenda without any consideration for the communities presented within geographical areas.

Towards the end of the meeting it became apparent that meeting had nothing to do with complaints associated with short term rentals but with mix of preserving community character and affordable housing. This was both surprising and concerning. For one Steamboat 700 is expected to bring lots of residential units that will be as affordable as any can get. Isn't that part of housing solution? Kum and Go is recognizable regional retailer. Currently Kum and Go stores are closed at night in Hayden, Steamboat and Silverton due to labor shortage. If cost of housing is issue in Steamboat, why Hayden and Silverton share same labor shortage? It appears that roots of this problem are much deeper and more complex than housing prices.

When I was a kid, at my grandparents street there was lots of children I would play with. I can understand why some community members and Council members are seeking similar for their children. Unfortunately, today there is no kids in my grandparents street, just bunch of older people. This is same as it happens in Steamboat even though my grandparents don't live in this City, nor State, nor Country, nor Continent. Most all Steamboat communities have HOA associations. Bylaws are presented to anyone purchasing home and renters can be informed regarding community's restrictions. If people live in community that allows short term rental they should not be surprised that someone might be doing it. What right do we have to limit rights of our neighbors just so that our street is per our liking? This is very hypocritical. There are lots of neighborhoods that are built for short term rentals and where most or all people do short term rental. What right do we have to change character of these neighborhoods? It was very disappointing to hear certain Council member(s) voting to limit short term rentals in all neighborhoods regarding of their character. I would expect Council members to represent all of our interests and to at least discuss and take in consideration all of our desires rather than bluntly pushing their own agenda.

Perhaps even more concerning is Council's direction to the Staff to include multifamily buildings in the prohibited zone South of Walton Creek road as those are older properties that would decrease value once in prohibited zone and present themselves as affordable housing. How can we play with people's likelihood like this?

It appears to me that whole process is being rushed due to self imposed deadlines. Please stop with ad-hoc decisions. Get the data on short term rentals and than start dialog. We can not be fixing something we don't know is broken. Let's see what "yellow dots" are before we start looking if we need to fix anything at all.

brstina 3 months ago

This is what I sent to all city council members, my realtor and property management company

Here is what I sent to all council members

My name is Keith Mazza, and my wife and I are proud owners of a condo at Mustang Run. We purchased this property last year to be closer to our daughter, son-in-law, and grandkids, as they live only a few blocks away. Currently, we live in Colorado Springs, as we are not yet fully retired. We have also used the property this past year as a short term rental as permitted by our board and HOA. That was also attractive to us at the time of purchase.

We acknowledge the issue of long term housing for service workers in Steamboat and are aware that this is an issue in many ski communities. We recognize this moratorium on STR is your solution. Historically, vacation rentals, including STRs have supported local businesses, positively impacting the local economy in various areas including property management, restaurants, entertainment, housekeeping, real estate, recreation, and numerous professional trades. Short term rentals appear to be the “easy target” as a solution to this housing issue. Yet, eliminating all STRs in pre-specified, autocratically and arbitrarily designated communities is not the solution to much bigger challenges, many that are unforeseen or will be created by this moratorium in Steamboat. Mustang Run and many other properties on your list fall outside of “affordable housing” for the average workforce in Steamboat. Many owners will not, and cannot convert their property into local housing without some type of city financial incentives. Does the city have a plan in place for such incentives or has that topic not even been thought about? If owners of properties deemed no longer available to the short term rental community do not convert to a long term rental, or decide to unload their property at a greatly reduced value, your moratorium will not have solved any housing problem whatsoever. Having a property sit vacant for 50 weeks of the year solves nothing!

We are in favor of regulations and a licensing process and would happily comply. We also support your decision to hire a compliance agency. During the last year we have employed a professional property manager specifically to demonstrate we are being responsible, and respectful of our neighbors. The property manager utilizes advanced technology to monitor for noise, and the number of guests logged into WIFI. They employ local professionals to monitor guests, and are available 24/7. They also utilize local companies to clean and maintain our unit as necessary. Never have we had a complaint regarding any of our guests. In fact, the president of our board lives in the complex and was totally unaware of our STR. We are not one of your “bad apples,” yet we are being lumped together, geographically, without any fact or evidence to substantiate your reasoning in doing so.

We are asking that you reconsider your position of prohibiting STR in overlay areas. A “balanced” solution that is more civil-equitable, supporting and sustaining the community and individual property owners, seems more reasonable. Let’s investigate other options, enforce STR registrations, taxes and compliance of community rules, and implement a monitoring process, so that the end result is continued economic growth for Steamboat during these challenging times. This knee jerk reaction will be deemed a “violation of personal property rights” as owners will be disallowed to make full use of their properties. Lets all take a step back, take a breath, and think this through. We urge you to reconsider your position on this matter. Let all of us be a part of the solution, not the problem.

Respectfully and hopefully submitted,

Keith J. Mazza

(719) 930-7019

Confidentiality Notice: This message is private and may contain confidential and proprietary information. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system and note that you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. Any unauthorized use or disclosure of the contents of this message is not permitted and may be

Tanman 3 months ago

Hi. I wanted to share my thoughts and opinions on this proposal:
-This overlay district that is proposed is a big overreach. This is a rash move...a quick reaction to a couple of NIMBY folk that got really vocal. This will negatively impact our real estate economy, real estate values, and will scare away investment in our community.
-Using Bear Creek Dr as the example...these folks bought in a neighborhood that allows short term rentals. That is part of living on the mountain. This is a vacation community. This is the pure definition of private property rights...please let's not start violating private property rights!
-You can't prohibit an activity that was once allowed, and take that away. So many of these properties were bought for the very reason that they can be rented as STRs. Now you are just going to say "sorry too bad, you lose" to all these folks that inject cash and property tax and help keep our local economy afloat? Sure many of them are not local but these are huge drivers of our economy.
-This will lower property values and it will happen fast. Many people cannot afford to keep these 2nd homes without the short term rental income. You will see people dumping properties on the market at a loss. It will happen really really fast. Real estate markets can change incredibly quickly...and a big move like this would change our entire market and not for the better. This will not help Steamboat's economy!!
-Do we think this will increase housing stock for locals? I don't agree. So many of these are owned by front range folks that simply won't rent them out long term as they want to use them as well. They will not say "oh well, I can't STR anymore, I guess I will just rent it out LTR at a loss". Sorry that is simply not how it is going to go.
-The economics of these units won't work as long term rentals in many cases...these more expensive units won't get enough rent to cover expenses in many cases and will also lead to people selling their units. I own a property mgmt company and many of my real estate clients are investors...they need a certain return to make the investment work. For many of the people that have bought recently, the price has been high and the only way they can afford to keep these units is by doing short term rental.
-There is a way to do this right. BUT it's not by prohibiting STRs where they were previously allowed. You cannot do that! This would be extremely destabilizing to our real estate community.
-What is the goal here?? What are we trying to accomplish? That is my big question. What problem are we trying to solve? This doesn't make sense...this is way too big of a move. Steamboat needs short term rentals! Steamboat needs 2nd homeowners. This is a vacation community! Our community lives on these out of town dollars.

benblonder 3 months ago

Dear City Council, 
I would like to point out a few things:
1. Please understand there are lots of people already seeking attorney's help at this time. People will fight for property rights in their neighborhoods hard. 
2. Please don't ignore what the public is telling you. People want regulation and not prohibition. The City of Steamboat has rushed moratorium on short-term rental permits limiting the time available to properly address the issue. Perhaps even more concerning than limiting and revoking the rights of the homeowners are self-imposed short deadlines where City staff is being instructed to take actions before data to support such actions is available. Some City Counsels have expressed a direct desire to remove thousands of properties that currently operate some level of short-term rentals regardless of the impact to the owners while owners that have Vacation Permits in place might be grandfathered in. During the hearing, I have learned that some of the "yellow dots" are homeowners that do limited rental of the home where they live through the year. We do not know how many of the "yellow dots" have a similar model. Taking away this owner's right will do absolutely nothing to increase the availability of housing for long-term rental. It was very concerning and disturbing that some Council members were having a hard "no" stance for short-term rental in the areas adjacent to the Ski Mountain without even looking into the character of the neighborhoods in the area. I was appalled that Staff was instructed to draw the map where multi-family properties south of Walton Creek Road would be excluded from short-term rental because those are older properties that if devalued will be more affordable. Who gives City Council the right to target areas based on the value and purposely seeks devaluation of the private properties? As a Realtor, I am knowledgeable regarding all affected neighborhoods and complexes and I can assure you that there are out-of-town buyers that will purchase these devaluated properties so that they have their winter getaway. Instead of having property available for long-term rental this decision will permanently remove these properties from the rental pool!
Proceeding with the map was very unprofessional, based on personal agenda, and not based on what the public wants. We are not Cuba or North Korea to take away property rights from 1000's of property owners. Saying "we don't need more public opinion" during that meeting was shocking and not something I would expect from people who should represent the public and not personal interest. Making such an important decision in less than 30 minutes, during an extremely unprofessional conversation will destroy our neighborhoods and our community as a whole. 
3. I hope you understand we are sending the message that we don't welcome tourists and second homeowners. This is not what Steamboat is about. We are a resort town and a world-class ski center. I hope we can treat the tourists the way we want to be treated when we go travel. I have heard concerns regarding neighborhoods changing. I understand them. What I don't understand is how is it that we are OK protecting our right to have the type of neighborhood we seek by limiting the rights of our neighbors? I owned several houses in Steamboat and every time before purchasing them I received covenants that explained to me what is allowed and what is not. If I purchase homes where nightly rentals are restricted I understand that there will be none, same if I purchase homes where they are not restricted. Don't buy a home in a neighborhood you don't wanna live in. It's simple as that. During the time I lived in Steamboat, I had issues with neighbors that owned the property, that rented long term and that rented short term. My husband is a contractor here in Steamboat and he and every other contractor can attest that either Police or City Code Enforcer officer are very quick to respond to any noise, parking, or any other complaints. I also learned during the hearing that there are devices that monitor noise levels that can be installed in vacation homes. The city has the means and resources to ensure that noise ordinance and trash ordinance are followed and I do not believe that City is not capable of enforcing it with short-term rental homes. If it is necessary to have a register of all homes or even to have management company contact on the home itself in order to contact them 24/7 so be it. All of the issues with some of the rental homes that were brought up can be addressed without limiting property rights. It appears that the whole point of this process has nothing to do with complaints, but with agenda to provide (more) affordable housing.
4. With the action you are proposing, you will attract homebuyers who don't care about short-term rentals and retired people. None are the workforce. We will see more people who will use property 3-4 weeks per year and have it empty for the rest of the year. Lots of jobs will be lost, lots of properties will be empty. In 5 years we get lots of empty properties, it will be too late to bring short-term rentals back. Most owners won't be willing to do it. We are seeing a number of short-term rentals going down already. 
5. Labor shortage is all over the country. Steamboat short-term rentals can not be blamed for this. Why there is no labor in Hayden? Housing is available and cheaper than here. Craig is 45 minutes away. Housing is even cheaper there. I lived in the City. If a 45-minute commute is the short one in Citys, why can't it be done here? There are hundreds of vehicles and hundreds of employees commuting between Craig and Steamboat every day.
6. People are divided more than ever. First, it was Biden-Trump, then masks or no masks, vaccines or no vaccines. It is extremely sad you are creating another division among people. We are a community that consists of people who live here and second homeowners and investors. This is how it has always been, and this is how it should be. Please don't make division problems even bigger. 
7. Our short-term rental neighborhoods mostly look great. Look at the condo complexes, look at the Porches. No trash, no issues. The comment that some long-term rental neighborhoods look bad is accurate. Saying during the meeting, that long-term rental properties can be checked by the owners, is impractical and most owners don't do this. It's missing the point. It's sending the message that we are not interested if the long-term rental property is in a bad shape and we are only concerned regarding short-term rental properties. Everyone needs to keep our community clean, not only short-term rental owners. Trash issue, noise issue should apply for EVERYONE. I am the first one to admit that more than once I had to pick up my own trash that bears got out of the can and I am not the only one. My husband would make noise in the garage when working on equipment. Should we go ahead and forbid owners to live in their properties as well because of trash and noise?
8. I was shocked to hear the comment property values are determined by the assessor. This is a long discussion we can have, and this is absolutely wrong. Property is worth how much is someone willing to pay for it. The assessor is assessing the value, the market is determining the value. We don't live in a planned economy!
9. The whole process of instructing Staff how to proceed was so unprofessional and shameful. Out of almost five hours Council, members were rushing the process at the very end of the meeting. There was no discussion of the character of the areas in question. Only one council member has even brought up complexes that exist in the areas, some other members did not appear to be familiar with them. Isn't this a topic that should have been researched by Council before the meeting so informed decisions could be made? That's right, informed decisions can not be made before data is available, but Council is still pushing forward.  I would hope you will be representing all residents and owners, not just your agendas.
 How can you make a decision on the map when it was obvious you don't even know which complex is in certain areas? How can you proceed with a map when 75% of public comments are asking you not to proceed? Are you representing all of us or are you going by your personal agenda? How can you take away property rights from 1000s of people in such a short period of time? This is such a hostile approach, not based on enough data, rushed and absolutely not what most people want. 
10. If someone is on Apres Ski Way, or similar, and they knowingly purchased property close to the slopes, next to the multi-family building, I would guess it's expected they will see lots of tourists. Regulating this, and controlling it, is the way to go. For example, have them call the police with the license plate of the person driving fast (and this applies to any neighborhood), and have that person pay the fine. Post extra sign "Drive slow". There are many options. In my neighborhood Police have installed radar and determined that very low percentage of drivers were speeding through the neighborhood regardless of the constant complaints they receive. For trash, the same thing, report the bad actors and have them pay huge fines. Post signs in troubled neighborhoods. Don't make decisions based on a few people being upset we live in the resort town. We have plenty of short-term rental neighborhoods that look great. People can always move to a neighborhood where short-term rentals are not allowed. We have plenty of those. I personally didn't like HOA rules in my neighborhood and decided to move to a place where there is no HOA. We have options. 
11. At the end of the meeting I was convinced that this whole ordeal has nothing to do with regulating short-term rental properties, but everything with removing them from the rental pool and devaluating properties in the "yellow zones". How many units do we need for our workforce? Is Steamboat 700 going to resolve the problem and other deed-restricted developments? If such huge development like Steamboat 700, that got attention from Colorado Governor, will not help put a dent in the housing problem than properties in short term rental pool won't for sure. Not many workers can afford to rent a multi-million dollar home (or a million-dollar home if your devaluation scheme plays out). I have moved into Steamboat, worked here, and lived here. While rent was half what it is now, wages were also half from what they are now. Steamboat is and never was a cheap place to live. If you want to provide chap housing then we need more developments closer to the City limits where land is cheaper. There are lots in Craig that sell for $20k if the cheapest lot in Steamboat is $300k there will be no affordable housing. Steamboat 700 and similar developments are solutions to the rental problem, not limiting existing owners and especially owners in the proximity of ski mountain. 

Are you making sure people employed in Routt county are the ones who live in these units? Lots of employers are paying 15-20/hour as starting pay, and some are paying much more. Why is it so difficult to afford rentals? Is it maybe the problem that people who are receiving stimulus checks, and not working, are complaining they can not afford to live here? Let's do the math and figure out where the problem is. When I came to Steamboat, I worked for $9/hour. Rents were about $2000/month on 2 bedrooms. Pay mostly doubled, rents did go up. But when you do the math, people should still be able to afford it. It's not easy, and it has never been easy. 
12. How in the world are you going to resolve housing problems by prohibiting rentals on a few million-dollar homes? One example are duplexes on Snowflake circle, but there are many others. The last one sold over $1.8M. What will you gain by taking away property rights from these people? Why are you punishing great people, who are doing a great job managing their short-term rentals, because of a few bad actors? We have bad actors among long-term renters, as well as among people who live here full time. Let's just work on bad actors and leave the rest of the people alone. 
I feel ashamed to live in a resort community where tourism and second homeowners are not welcome and neighbors work to impose restrictions on their neighbors under the rouse of the greater good. Lots of my friends who listened to that meeting called it a huge disappointment. Please don't destroy our community, our neighborhoods just because you have put yourself in a position where you have to rush this and make decisions quickly. I fully support more regulation and getting everyone licensed, but creating prohibiting areas is extremely wrong. I want Steamboat to stay what it has always been known for, friendliness, a great community, where people are welcomed. There are plenty of neighborhoods where short-term rentals are not allowed and whoever is not happy can move in neighborhoods like this. Let HOA and each neighborhood decide what they want to do, let owners decide what they want to do with their own properties. They worked hard to be able to afford properties here. Please don't take away their rights and consider that vacation homeowners/short-term property owners took into consideration the financial impacts of what they ARE allowed when they made the decision to purchase. None of us has a right to change market rules and to cause them hardship where they might even have to foreclose on the homes. That is not fair and that is not right!
I truly hope you will do what's best for our community, and not go by personal agenda. 

Sunny Brstina 3 months ago

Regarding the article in the Pilot on the City Council work session on Tuesday, Aug. 17, I’m dismayed that it stated, “all five council members oppose short term rentals in Barn Village.” Yet from a STR standpoint, Barn Village has easy access to the city bus, City Market, Wall Mart, Central Park Liquor and easy walking to some restaurants! I understand that Barn Village has covenants prohibiting STR’s anyway so that makes it easy for you to oppose them in that community!
Then again, “all five council members favored STR’s for Cornice Rd. and Clubhouse Drive.” Cornice Road seems viable but above Cornice Road on Clubhouse Drive, STR’s are absolutely NOT appropriate! Clubhouse Drive is steep, with no sidewalks, no reasonable access to the city bus or shopping or restaurants on foot! When is the last time any of you drove or walked all the way up Clubhouse Drive?
There are many homes on Clubhouse Dr. above Cornice Road built 1984, ’87, ’90, ’91, ’94 and later in which the original owners still reside. If that’s not the definition of a “residential neighborhood” what is?
I live at the upper end of Clubhouse Drive. Our area is a 29 lot subdivision called Country Club Highlands consisting of 25 homes and 4 vacant lots. It was developed in 1980 by Don Valentine. The first homes were built in 1983! Most of those homes are occupied by long time, full time residents. A few are second homes.
About 5 years ago, a home in my neighborhood sold and suddenly, we had a vacation rental just down the street. We’ve had the typical late night party noise, bears in the trash put out the night before, speeding and running the stop sign at the intersection of Clubhouse and Overlook Drive. Neighbors even had to call the police a few years ago because of a backyard bonfire during stage 2 fire restrictions! This is on a lot that is heavy with and adjacent to some of the most heavily timbered dead and down trees in the entire city!
It is ludicrous to consider approving the upper section of Clubhouse drive as appropriate for short term rentals! It is truly a long established residential neighborhood, not a hotel or condo zone!
I’m imploring you all to listen to the voices of the vast number of residents who make this community their home and are the heart and soul of Steamboat Springs as opposed to those who for the most part, don’t even live here and simply profit from making life miserable for those who do!

Michael Turner
Clubhouse Drive

Michael Turner 3 months ago

Email update from Govenor Polis:
Proposed Affordable Housing Site Steamboat Springs

I met with Yampa Valley Housing Authority to visit their new 536-acre affordable housing site, a project that will address Steamboat’s long-term housing crisis. Yampa Valley Housing Authority is working closely with the Colorado Department of Local Affairs on a master plan for the project. The current proposed site will house approximately 4,000 residents. We need new forms of development to expand wisely, not just at the urban fringe, but in our high country areas. We also need to prioritize system-wide changes that will transform the state and make housing affordable.

downhill 3 months ago

My wife and I have been owners of numerous properties in Steamboat since 2000. We purchased our permanent residence on Snowflake Circle new in 2006 and have been full time residents since 2008. Our once quiet residential neighborhood has evolved into a VHR nightmare with 30 percent of the 36 being used for VHR. We suffer nearly nightly from noisy inconsiderate renters and have had to call the non emergency PD 8 times in the last year. Weekly rentals and sometimes stays of only 2 or 3 days is not rare. In the evening, vacationers often fill hot tubs, yelling, singing and partying way past 10pm. The parking situations are often disastrous having 5-6 vehicles parked in a driveway made to accommodate 2. We have witnessed renters tossing furniture and urinating off of decks, playing beer pong for hours on end and urinating in backyards.

Just last month, there were 4 families in one 5 bedroom house. 8 adults, 10-12 children completely took over common area by setting up volleyball net while parents played corn hole and drank in the adjoining driveway. Later that evening, they partied around a fire pit that they set up in the driveway as we are dealing with wildfires. I don't believe these VHR owners have experienced this on their stays and certainly would not put up with this behavior in Dallas, Denver, FL and anywhere USA. I do believe that the proliferation of Vrbo, Airbnb and other online platforms have greatly exasperated the problem. I doubt in the current local labor shortage that any manage company large or small has the capacity to handle unruly renters. So they simply don't.

The notion of property values being affected by prohibiting STR's on Snowflake circle/court doesn’t hold water. A home recently sold in July for the highest price in the neighborhood while only being on the market 5 hours with multiple offers. Thankfully, the new owners will be full time residents. I realize that owners who rent their homes are supplementing the cost of ownership, however they are infringing on my rights of ownership and quality of life by running a "mini hotel" for their financial gain in a residential zoned neighborhood. VHRs should be located in the resort zoned area. S.F.

stephen failla 3 months ago
Page last updated: 11 November 2021, 09:12