as simple as possible and wanted it to apply as equally as possible without specific
“carve-outs” or loopholes they had perceived as developing during previous
ordinance processes. They felt such carve-outs addressed the business practice of a
few vocal minority operators. The Commission saw such amendments as a downfall
of previous ordinances that had been proposed for STRs (but not passed).
There was additional discussion on how they could tighten up the ordinance for
negative externalities and unintended consequences by using real-life examples to
see if the desired outcome of the ordinance was achieved when applied. This
“code-breaking” exercise could help to make the regulations better thought-out as
it was common for operators to try to stretch any regulations in their favor as a
natural occurrence in a rational system. There was discussion on how the rental
certificate could specify occupancy for each unit once each unit had been evaluated
when the ordinance was in place. The fact that enforcement was often
complaint-driven was also discussed.
After discussion on the second vote as made by Mr. Stanton was complete, Ms. Loe
called for a vote of the Commission. Voting yes or no on eight persons as a
maximum cap on a dwelling unit’s occupancy: MacMann, YES; Burns, NO; Stanton,
YES; Carroll, YES; Geuea-Jones, YES; Kimball, YES; Loe, YES; Rushing, YES; Placier, YES.
Motion passed 8-1.
There was discussion on the potential for a third vote to allow a waiver or CUP
process to permit occupancy above eight but no more than the IPMC in residential
properties located in a commercial zone. How such a process may work or what it
would look like was discussed. There could be an administrative or regulatory (e.g.
CUP) process. The types of site-specific conditions and neighborhood-level analysis
related to occupancy in such situations was briefly discussed. Whether a
commercially-zoned property was adjacent to other commercial properties, or
adjacent to residential properties, was the type of scenario the Commission felt
would warrant consideration. The impact of residential versus commercial building
codes and the possible presence of sprinkler systems was discussed as another
factor to consider. There were many elements and scenarios the Commission may
need to consider herein. Ms. Smith suggested they bring this discussion back due to
the need to think about such scenarios.
The Commission said they would also like Ms. Smith to provide a new data update.
They had appreciated the previous data update on the landscape of the STRs
locally, and would like to have that research updated with current information as a
way of helping to craft future “use-specific standards”. Ms. Smith said she could
provide a data update comparing present data points with previous data to show
trends and the current landscape of STR numbers and operation metrics.
Mr. Zenner asked if the Commission wanted the staff to start to prepare potential
use-specific standards to begin to react to, noting the Commission had identified
areas of concern that may be addressed by such standards, such as trash, parking,
landscaping and screening. The Commission said that the public would be
interested in knowing how such issues would be addressed.
Mr. Zenner said they could have a data update and the beginnings of use-specific
standards for the Commission’s reaction at the second meeting in May (May 19). He