The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Continuing public hearing with work session on potential exceptions
by Kendra Walker
After hearing feedback from property owners, property managers and local realtors, the Mt. Crested Butte town council voted to continue a public hearing on its proposed updates to short-term rental (STR) occupancy limits that limit occupancies based on the number of bedrooms in a unit.
The updated ordinance caps an STR unit’s total occupancy at a formula of two guests per bedroom, plus an additional two guests. For example, a three-bedroom home would carry an occupancy limit of eight guests total. The ordinance also limits the number of unrelated reservations for a short-term rental to no more than two parties. The council approved the first reading of the ordinance on June 16 and held a public hearing during its review of the second reading on July 21.
Town clerk Tiffany O’Connell explained that the updates were prompted by fire and building code updates to ensure life safety and proper egress, noting instances where lofts lacked adequate escape routes.
However, public comments argued that a blanket cap across all STR units in Mt. Crested Butte does not take into consideration differences in house layouts and egress, advanced fire suppression systems and square footage.
Chris Morgan, representing the Gunnison-Crested Butte Association of Realtors, told the council the ordinance change will have significant impacts on STR owners and requested additional time for dialogue before approving the final ordinance.
“There are many legal sleeping spaces that do not count as bedrooms in the county, yet have already been approved for STR occupancy by the town of Mt. Crested Butte,” wrote Sara Morgan in a letter to the council. “Another concern about this change is that rental history plays a role in the purchase process. Potential buyers ‘crunch the numbers.’ They are evaluating a property’s rental proforma and potential based on a rental history that is no longer attainable and not know it. While the proposed occupancy limit may help solve a few problem properties that may be pushing the boundaries, it will punish others.”
Diane Bienasz, an STR owner of 28 years, noted that her large, five-bedroom home is equipped with a commercial-grade fire suppression system and multiple entry points, questioning why her property should face the same limits as a smaller condominium. “This seems to treat all homes the same regardless of safety features,” she said.
She added that the cap could jeopardize already-booked large family gatherings and weddings, where people are expecting a certain number of sleeping spaces. “I don’t want to cancel somebody’s wedding scheduled for next July.”
Property owner Peter Loudis asked the council to consider spaces with pre-reviewed bunk configurations and capacities, warning that the reduced occupancy would mean less revenues for owners needing to cover their mortgages.
“It seems overly restrictive and unnecessary,” said David Floyd. “I haven’t heard of any health or safety violations. I don’t understand the reasons why these new rules are being put in place without any data related to short-term rental occupancy. A lot of us run short-term rentals very well in this community. It almost feels like the town is starting to target short-term rentals and I don’t understand why.” He also voiced his concern that a lot of STR owners don’t live in Mt. Crested Butte and don’t know what’s going on, encouraging the town to increase communications with STR owners when it is proposing changes like this.
O’Connell noted that compliance issues frequently come up during the town’s periodic life safety inspections conducted by staff, such as checking for required fire extinguishers, smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.
“So far whenever we’ve done a periodic life inspection, I don’t believe any owner has passed even though every owner swears they are up-to-date,” she said.
“I’m hearing people aren’t doing their job, they’re letting their place fall into fire danger, and now because it’s more likely there’s going to be a fire, we need to make it easier for fewer people to get out of the building,” said council member Roman Kolodziej. “I’m wondering if there’s a way to make those compliance checks more severe. I’d like to hear more about whether the measures we have in place during those periodic updates are strong enough.”
Council member Steve Morris pointed out that the town’s existing STR parking restrictions already serve as a natural safeguard for occupancy. He also noted, “A room with three bunk beds isn’t usually three couples from Denver, it’s usually three kids.”
Council members agreed that a large single-family home on Prospect should not necessarily have the same occupancy limits as a compact condo in Pitchfork, and agreed more time was needed to explore exemptions. They had no issue with the section of the ordinance that limits the number of unrelated reservations for short-term rental to no more than two parties.
The council asked staff for data on previous life safety violations, how many of those are condos vs. larger single-family homes, and a breakdown of current penalties.
They voted to continue the public hearing and schedule a work session to explore possible exemptions for unique properties and address public feedback prior to scheduling a public hearing continuation date.
