HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-2015 PH1 Cross 1Subject: FW: PH 1 Owner "Occupied" Homestay Rentals
COUNCIL MEETING: I
ITEM
From: Brett Cross [brettcross @yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 2:05 PM
To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan JAN 0 5 2015
Subject: PH 1 Owner "Occupied" Homestay Rentals
Dear Council Members,
I don't even know where to begin. You'll notice that the subject line has quotations around Occupied in that the Homestay
Rental ordinance doesn't actually require the owner to occupy the house during rental stays. Oh, and the housing exemption
requirement is farcical. It's $7000 off the assessed valuation and given current property tax rates is $70. Given the amount of
money that can be generated by renting out rooms daily I'd say that doesn't ensure the "owner" lives there.
This new use was "sold" to the Council and the community as a way to meet new people, showcase our community to out -of-
towners, and provide for a little extra income so folks wouldn't have sell their homes, which would invariably become student
rentals, along with better upkeep. That was proverbial BS, it's about money and money has a bad habit of corrupting our
thinking, even the most upstanding of us. Not to mention it appears from the staff report that the City isn't beyond the influence
of TOT income itself. Additionally, allowing Homestays has the potential to make existing house less affordable to new buyers
as potential income from now legally renting out rooms short term is factored into the selling price.
The "regulations ", which I've again put into quotations, because there really are not any regulations proposed that are in place to
address on site parking, constant guest traffic, or substantial changes in the character of existing neighborhoods. Staff is
recommending 1 space be provide off street. That requirement doesn't satisfy on site parking if more than one bedroom is being
rented, nor does it require that guests park off street, plus there doesn't seem to be any provision that required off street parking
for R 1 properties is available at all. Plus who is suppose to make sure that the required conditions are actually being followed -
the neighbors ?. Is the City going to compensate them for doing Community Development's job ?.
The "regulations" don't restrict the number of days per month one can use their house as a Bed and Breakfast. It's possible that
every day out of the month there will be guests arriving and leaving a homestay rental. Do you not think that will have a
detrimental impact on the neighbors whose now live next to a B &B. I'm certain you've noticed that I called this use a Bed and
Breakfast because that is exactly what is being proposed albeit without the required parking. Just take out the "manager"
requirement of the list of conditions for a B &B and replace with "responsible party" and you've created a Bed and Breakfast in
the R1- and R -2 zones.
The staff report should have recommended a more restrictive set of conditions which would have allowed the City to review
potential impacts to neighbors and neighborhoods. It is very hard to reverse course after establishing use requirements. Heck,
the Bed and Breakfast regulations are more restrictive than what is being recommended by staff.
The staff recommendation should be rejected and additional conditions for a Homestay Use be added. Including- 1). Owner
must be present during Check In and Check Out and during the hours of l OPM to 7 PM (existing noise ordinance). 2.) One
parking space is required on site per rented room. 3.) Maximum number of rented days- 10 days per month. 4.) Maximum
number of rooms rented- 2 per evening. 5.) Concentration provisions. 6.) Revocation language.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross