building code at the last meeting.
Mr. Zenner further described Section 2 and noted that it was proposed to contain
information on the zones that would permit STRs was well as other use-specific
standards. He noted that the use could be potentially considered as a principal
permitted, accessory, or conditional accessory use in different zoning districts. Mr.
Zenner described the differences between the different categories noting that a
conditional accessory use would require a Council approval for a dwelling to be
used as an STR if the Commission saw that option as appropriate.
Mr. Zenner completed his overview of the staff memo and proposed STR outline by
describing the contents of Section 3. He described possible use-specific standards
for design or dimensional requirements, occupancy based on bedrooms and
specialized parking standards. He made reference to pulling other conditions from
the original STR ordinance addressing topics such as non-event usage and other
specific standards that appeared to be common in reviewed ordinances to limit the
possible negative impact of STRs on the surrounding environment. He suggested
that to limit the impact of investor operated STRs on affordable housing loss there
could be use-specific provisions establishing a maximum number or percentage of
the City’s overall housing stock that would be permitted to operate as an STR. He
noted that such a provision was very similar to how the City was currently handling
medical marijuana dispensaries.
Mr. Zenner also noted that the last element of Section 3 was critical and would
address how existing STRs would be handled. He noted that in his review of
ordinances this topic was handled in several ways, but in no instance was
registration or compliance with the adopted zoning or registration requirements
waived. The majority of ordinances reviewed required annual registration and
often include an “amnesty” period for previously operated STRs to become
compliant within 6-12 months.
Mr. Zenner noted that the section layout and format was prepared as a means of
focusing the Commission and staff’s efforts at preparing what was believed to be
the minimally essential contents of a successful ordinance. He requested
Commissioner comments on what was presented.
There was general discussion on the proposed outline. Most Commissioners were
supportive of the elements and sections; however, there was discussion on shifting
sections around. Several Commissioners expressed a desire to discuss and resolve
the matter relating to what zoning districts and in what manner STRs should be
permitted/allowed. There was discussion that once that matter was resolved
tailored use-specific standards could be written and from that undefined terms
would be made clear and could be defined. There was a desire to try to avoid
creating new definitions for terms wherever possible to reduce confusion.
In the course of discussing the outline offered by Mr. Zenner the Commissioners
agreed that defining where STRs should be permitted needed to be addressed first.
The Commissioners discussed comments offered by Commissioner Rushing at the
prior work session comparing STRs to home-based daycares. What resonated with
several Commissioner was the concept that a home-based daycare was only
permitted when the operated was living within the dwelling. In a similar fashion,