Loading...
I04. Ord 1778 - Short Term RentalsPlanning Department 201 1' Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/planning REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager:�A-u FROM: PJ Sorensen, Planner SUBJECT: Ordinance 1778 - First Reading — Short Term Residential Rentals MEETING DATE: November 7, 2016 BACKGROUND: On October 10, 2016, the City Council held a work session regarding a proposal to allow short term residential rentals. There had been concern over unintended consequences expressed at a prior meeting and the additional work session was scheduled to explore that topic. The proposal was originally part of a group of amendments that were discussed at a work session held by the Planning Board on March 8, 2016. A public hearing was held by the Planning Board on April 12, 2016. At that time, no comments were received, and the Planning Board sent a recommendation of approval to the City Council on a 7-0 vote. The City Council held a work session on April 25, 2016, to discuss the proposals. The Council then directed staff to present the proposals at the next regular meeting. At the May 2, 2016, meeting, the Council voted to separate the short term residential rental proposal from the other amendments and bring the short term residential rental zoning amendment to the Council during the next work session, which occurred on May 9, 2016. At the conclusion of that work session, the Council asked for additional information and requested another work session, which was held on June 27, 2016. The September 12, 2016, work session addressed questions from the June meeting. The October 10, 2016, meeting, as noted above, explored potential unintended consequences. One alternative raised during the October 10 Council work session involved creating a Village Greens PUD that would incorporate Village Greens and provide for the annexation of the golf course, club house, restaurant and driving range. The Golf Course ownership was not inclined to pursue this option so at this time the PUD option for Village Greens is off the table. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Kalispell City Council move to approve the first reading of Ordinance 1778. FISCAL EFFECTS: There are no anticipated fiscal impacts at this time. Annual costs of enforcement are covered through annual renewals of the permit. ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request, which would mean that short term rentals would continue to not be allowed under the zoning ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 1778 Updated Staff Report (May 2016) Minutes of Planning Board Meeting (April 12, 2016) Public Comment submitted to City Clerk Report compiled: October 31, 2016 c: Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 1778 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO. 1677) AT KALISPELL MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 27.20.095 SHORT TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTAL STANDARDS AND 27.37.10 DEFINITIONS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT "A", AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, from time to time it is prudent for City staff and the City Council to review and amend its land use ordinances to reflect current trends and beneficial land use policies that are in the best interests of the City's residents and guests; and WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell Planning Department submitted a request to the Kalispell City Planning and Zoning Commission to consider certain amendments to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance regarding the use of land in the City for Short Term Residential Rentals; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission considered the request by the Kalispell Planning Department, took public comment and evaluated the request pursuant to the guidelines of KMC 27.29.020; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission forwarded its recommendation to the Kalispell City Council that certain portions of text of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance be amended as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and fully incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council has fully considered the public comment received, both written and oral, reviewed and considered the Kalispell Planning Department Report and the transmittal from the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission and hereby adopts the findings made in Report # KZTA-16-03, as amended, as the Findings of Fact to be applied to this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 1677, is hereby amended as set forth fully on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and fully incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. All parts and portions of Ordinance No. 1677 not amended hereby remain unchanged. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL THIS DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016. ATTEST: Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC City Clerk Mark Johnson Mayor EXHIBIT "A" 27.20.095 Short Term Residential Rental Standards. A residential dwelling unit, whether in a residential or commercial zone, may be rented for a period shorter than thirty days provided that the following performance standards are met: (1) The property owner shall first obtain an administrative conditional use permit from the Planning Department (See Chapter 27.33). (2) The number of units rented shall not exceed the allowable density for the zoning district where the property is located. (3) The administrative conditional use permit review shall include: (a) Proof of an inspection by the Building Department showing that all life safety requirements are met, including, but not limited to, smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, egress windows out of sleeping areas, handrails, hot water temperature, exposed electrical wiring, and ground faults within six feet of sinks/tubs; (b) Proof of a State of Montana public accommodation license for a tourist home, which is administered by the Flathead City -County Health Department and is subject to annual inspections; (c) Verification that the property is appropriately registered and meets requirements for state bed tax purposes; (d) The property owner shall provide their name and phone number or of a local contact person that shall be responsible for handling any issues that arise with the property. The contact shall be available to address any issues 24 hours a day and seven days a week. The contact information shall be included in the notice sent to property owners within 150 feet as provided for in the administrative conditional use permit process; and (e) Each short term rental shall have access to the minimum required parking for a residential unit in the zoning district (no non -conforming status). (4) There shall be no signage indicating the short term rental of the property. (5) Prior to April 1 each calendar year, a property owner that wishes to continue to provide short term residential rentals shall submit for an annual renewal of the administrative conditional use permit, including payment of a fee equal to the administrative conditional use permit fee then in effect. The renewal shall include verification of all of the information listed under Section 27.20.095(3). -Any updated contact information shall be provided to property owners within 150 feet. (6) Violations of the terms of the administrative conditional use permit or the provisions of this section may subject the property owner to an enforcement pursuant to the terms of this ordinance. Noise and similar issues may be enforced through the Police Department. 27.37.010: Definitions. (1-5-960) Residential. Regularly used by its occupants as a permanent place of abode, which is made one's home as opposed to one's place of business and which has housekeeping and cooking facilities for its occupants only. In situations where a dwelling is rented or leased, a residential use would involve lease periods of one month or more unless the provisions of Section 27.20.095 relating to short term residential rental standards are met. CITY OF KALISPELL — ZONING REGULATIONS KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT #KZTA-16-03 May 4, 2016 This report is a proposed updated staff report and findings of fact for the proposed amendment related to short term residential rentals. The report has been prepared for the Council's consideration as an alternative set of findings to replace the findings and recommendation approved by the Kalispell Planning Board on April 12, 2016. A series of amendments, which included short term rentals, had been reviewed by the Kalispell Planning Board at a work session held by the Board on March 8, 2016. At that time one member of the public did speak in support of allowing short term residential rentals in the community. Following this work session the Board held a public hearing on April 12, 2016. A recommendation was forwarded to the city council to adopt a slate of amendments. The Council did hold a work session on the entire slate of 15 amendments and then met on Monday, May 2, 2016 for hearing and action. At that meeting, the amendment addressing short term residential rentals was removed from the slate of amendments and sent back to a Council work session for additional review. BACKGROUND INFORMATION As part of a continuing effort to make the zoning ordinance up-to-date and current, staff compiled a short list of minor amendments to the ordinance specifically including how to address the use of short term residential rentals in Kalispell. A full text of the draft language relating to short term rentals is attached to this report. A. Petitioner: City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 (406) 758-7940 B. Area Effected by the Proposed Changes: Any residential property within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Kalispell may be affected by the proposed changes. C. Proposed Amendment: The changes to the current text of the code section are indicated below. Deletions are struck -out and additions are underlined. 27.20.095 Short Term Residential Rental Standards. A residential dwelling unit may be rented for a period shorter than thirty days provided that the following performance standards are met: Page 1 of 5 (1) The property owner shall first obtain an administrative conditional use permit from the Planning Department (See Chapter 27.L (2) The number of units rented shall not exceed the allowable density for the zoning district where the property is located. (3) The administrative conditional use permit review shall include: (a) Proof of an inspection by the Fire Department or its designee showing that all life safety requirements are met, including, but not limited to, smoke detectors and egress; (b) Proof of a State of Montana public accommodation license for a tourist home, which is administered by the Flathead City -County Health Department and is subject to annual inspections; (c) Verification that the property is appropriately registered and meets requirements for state bed tax purposes; and (d) The property owner shall provide their name and phone number or of a local contact person that shall be responsible for handling any issues that arise with the property. The contact shall be available to address any issues 24 hours a day and seven days a week. (4) The property owner or local contact's name and phone number shall be posted on an emergency contact notice visible from outside the front door. Otherwise, there shall be no signage indicating the short term rental of the property. (5) Violations of the terms of the administrative conditional use permit or the provisions of this section may subject the property owner to an enforcement pursuant to the terms of this ordinance. Noise and similar issues may be enforced through the Police Department. 27.37.010: Definitions. (15960) Residential. Regularly used by its occupants as a permanent place of abode, which is made one's home as opposed to one's place of business and which has housekeeping and cooking facilities for its occupants only. In situations where a dwelling is rented or leased, a residential use would involve lease periods of one month or more unless the provisions of Section 27.20.095 relating to short term residential rental standards are met. Page 2 of 5 D. Staff Discussion: The zoning ordinance defines "residential" to include rental periods of one month or more. Periods of time less than one month are either hotels or bed and breakfasts. The Planning Office usually receives about 3 or 4 complaints each year about VRBOs from neighbors (constant streams of people/frequent vacation parties, excessive garbage in the dumpsters), while at the same time has observed an increase in popularity by tourists throughout the country as well as homeowners that can generate substantial income through the program. Based on a staff survey of prominent web sites (VRBO, Air B&B, Craigslist, etc) there appears to be 30 — 40 such uses throughout the City of Kalispell. The numbers typically fluctuate with the seasons with the months of June, July and August as significantly higher use months. There are some concerns that these uses, while they do provide a benefit to the community, need to pay their share of the state bed tax and that they need to safe and well managed as well. At the planning board work session, the Board indicated that such uses could be acceptable in residential areas, but only subject to appropriate conditions that would ensure the units were safe, well managed and that they paid their fair share of the state bed tax. The Board also discussed whether short term rentals should be limited to certain areas of the city. It felt that, in part because we are not a resort community and in part due to a lack of any major distinction between neighborhoods in the City that would justify allowing such rentals in some areas, but not others, we should allow short term rentals on an equal basis anywhere that residential uses are allowed. In regard to the specific conditions, the Board felt that (1) fire and life safety inspections are important to protect the guests at the rentals; (2) compliance with all registration and licensing necessary to ensure that the appropriate bed taxes are paid in order to keep these rentals on an equal basis with hotels and other businesses which pay the tax; and (3) providing a way for neighbors to contact the owner when problems arise. Those concerns are provided for in the proposed text. Staff contacted other communities in the area, including Whitefish which just completed a lengthy study of the issue as well as resort communities in our greater area. Based on Board discussion, staff drafted an ordinance that would allow those types of rentals with an administrative conditional use permit. Under an administrative conditional use permit, all neighbors within 150 would be notified and offered an opportunity to comment. If comments could be addressed, the permit could proceed. If there was neighborhood objection that could not be addressed by staff or conditions, the full conditional use permit process would then be triggered. Conditions would include fire department and health department sign -offs, compliance with bed tax regulations, and providing contact information to the city as well as posting the information at the property. EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-303, M.C.A. Findings of Fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized criteria described by 76- 2-304, M.C.A. Page 3 of 5 1. Is the zoning regulation made in accordance with the growth polices The proposals are consistent with the growth policy. 2. Does the zoning regulation consider the effect on motorized and non -motorized transportation systems? The proposed amendments have a minimal effect on transportation systems. 3. Is the zoning regulation designed to secure safety from fire and other dangers? The proposed amendments add more clarity which allows for a better implementation of standards designed to protect the public from fire and other dangers. 4. Is the zoning regulation designed to promote public health, public safety, and the general welfare? The general health, safety, and welfare of the public will be promoted by creating a more predictable, orderly, and consistent environment. 5. Does the zoning regulation consider the reasonable provision of adequate light and air? The standards help provide for appropriate interaction between developed properties. 6. Is the zoning regulation designed to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements? As mentioned above, the zoning ordinance creates a more predictable, orderly, and consistent development pattern. That pattern allows for a more efficient allocation of public resources and better provision of public services. 7. Does the zoning regulation consider the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses? The amendments reflect the character of each district. 8. Does the zoning regulation consider conserving the value of buildings? Building values will be conserved by providing reasonable standards within zoning districts by encouraging predictable, orderly, and consistent development within a given area. 9. Does the zoning regulation encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality? The amendments help create consistency throughout comparable zones, which promotes Page 4 of 5 compatible urban growth. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Council adopt the findings in staff report KZTA-16-03 and adopt the proposed amendment as provided herein. Page 5 of 5 KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING APRIL 12, 2016 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: Chad Graham, Charles Pesola, Rory Young, Steve Lorch, Matt Regier, Doug Kauffman and Karlene Osorio-Khor participated via teleconference. Tom Jentz, Jarod Nygren and PJ Sorensen represented the Kalispell Planning Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Lorch moved and Pesola seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the March 8, 2016 meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote by acclamation. PUBLIC COMMENT None. SPARROW'S NEST A request by Sparrow's Nest of Northwest Montana, for a COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL conditional use permit for a Type 1 community residential facility FACILITY (group home) within the RA-1 (Residential Apartment) Zoning District. The property is located at 204 71h Avenue West. STAFF REPORT Jarod Nygren, representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed the staff report for the board. Nygren noted that community residential facilities are permitted provided a commercial use permit is obtained. This facility would provide a home for eight homeless high school students with an adult 24 hour on -site manager. Nygren reviewed the location of the property, zoning & surrounding zoning, the historical use of the property, and a review of the site. Nygren added when used by the church no additional on -site parking was required and there is not any space on the property where additional on -site parking could be located. The building is approximately 6600 square feet, with a main floor and basement which Nygren reviewed. One letter was received which discusses the proposed land use and the negative impacts on the surrounding community (copy attached). Nygren noted that the Sparrow's Nest team has conducted outreach to the neighbors letting them know what is proposed for the building. Nygren said typically group homes are statutorily protected by state law, however this use will not be licensed and was reviewed by staff as a single-family home. No additional requirements will Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2016 Page I I be placed on this use. Staff recommends that the Kalispell Planning & Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KCU-16-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the four conditions in staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Young noted the staff report indicates that there will be no impact on sewer services and shouldn't it say that the city has adequate capacity and Nygren said it doesn't have an impact because there is adequate capacity for a single-family use. Jentz clarified single- family residences can have 8-10 individuals which would be similar to this use. Graham noted the letter in opposition talks about the city taking responsibility and asked what are they referring to? Jentz said perhaps this person does not quite understand the process that we go through with a conditional use permit and is frustrated with a change in the neighborhood. Jentz added there is nothing usual about this application. PUBLIC HEARING Jerramy Dear-Ruel — Executive Director of Sparrow's Nest of Northwest Montana stated according to the National Center of Homeless Education 1.2 million public school children are homeless nationwide. There are approximately 2,640 homeless students in Montana during the 2013-2014 school years. Research shows 75% of homeless high school students drop out of school. Sparrow's Nest is an organization in Flathead County that works with the community to ensure that unaccompanied homeless high school students have a safe place to sleep at night and to graduate from high school and become productive contributing members of the community. Dear-Ruel provided history of the property for the board and he noted that they have received tremendous support from the community. John Constenius, J. Constenius Architects, South Whitefish, stated he was pleased to be approached by the Sparrow's Nest to assist them with the design of their facility. This type of facility is needed in the community and he and his wife know first-hand, having taken in a teenage boy for three years who was in desperate straits so when they came to him he felt the need and calling to step forward. Constenius provided additional information on the building and how they intend to improve it so it fits in the neighborhood, and details of the floor plan. He concluded it is designed to be a safe and secure place and also a place where the occupants live in a Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2016 Page 12 regulated manner and under the supervision of a staff member. Alan Ruby, 320 Hilltop Avenue, Kalispell stated over 40 years ago he was briefly homeless and because of the kindness of strangers it made a big difference to him, so he can understand this need. Marcie Bumke spoke to their Rotary a year ago, and he can tell she has touched a lot of people's lives. Certainly she touched his and he committed that morning to join the sleep -in which was in December. It also brought back memories that he would have liked suppressed. Eight to nine years ago his son had a friend who would come over to their house almost every night for dinner and he came to find out that this young man was homeless because his parents weren't getting along and he was couch surfing and he would catch a meal here and there. Ruby said when he found out how pervasive this was and he heard Marcie speak he thought this is something where the community can make a difference. They helped raise money and awareness and look where we are today. They have an extension of the Samaritan House in his neighborhood where Northridge Lutheran Church decided to use part of their facility to house a homeless family under very strict guidelines and Ruby he understands might be the very same ones or at least similar ones that the Sparrow's Nest might use at this facility. There have been no negative repercussions in his neighborhood, and in fact it has only been positive. Ruby beseeched this board to recommend approval of the conditional use permit that would allow this homegrown community solution to a very real problem in our community. We can make a difference. Rick Weaver, 276 Cardinal Lane stated they have also met some of the kids who would be considered homeless and he can say that most of the kids are homeless through no fault of their own. If you want to hold someone responsible, hold their family or adults who are supposed to be helping those kids get through life. This would be a safe haven for the kids to go to. These are not trouble kids that have been kicked out of their homes, they have been booted out of their house because their parents have had problems and they are good kids. Weaver said that he grew up on 71h Avenue West, before the church was built in 1970, and within one block of their house they had two neighbors who had more than eight kids and neither house was 6000 square feet, in fact he is sure they were about 1200 square feet with only one bathroom. Knowing some of the kids that have gone through this problem he doesn't see it being a trouble spot for the neighborhood on 71h Avenue West. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2016 Page13 Marcie Bumke, 55 West Brier Court, Kalispell, Chairperson for Sparrow's West, Northwest Montana thanked everyone in attendance and asked all who are in support of Sparrow's Nest to stand. Only one person in the room of approximately 50 people did not stand up. MOTION Lorch moved and Kauffman seconded a motion to adopt Staff Report KCU-16-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the four conditions in staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Karlene Osorio-Khor said one of the very first meetings she attended as a member of this board was a group home for the Montana Academy and there were neighbors who were concerned and worried about what this would mean to their neighborhood, which was very little. Neighbors became neighborly and did not see a threat by these young people living there. Sparrow's Nest would serve the entire community and it is sad that our children are sometimes expendable and this effort will make certain that they are not expendable, that we as a community want to address this problem, and she applauds the founder and all of the people who worked so hard and she will heartily vote to approve this conditional use permit. It is really needed and she is glad to see this project move forward. Pesola said he would also like to reiterate what Ms. Osorio-Khor said and he thinks that Marcie and the rest of the crew have done a phenomenal job with a program that is well needed in our community and beyond. You are doing a great job and the location of this property is will facilitate kids being able to continue going to school without transportation. He thanked the Tanko family for donating the building and thank you for seeing a need and filling it. There is an old saying that says "It takes a village" and he is glad to be able to vote in support of this organization and this facility. Graham also agreed with Ms. Osorio-Khor in that several years ago the board reviewed a couple of the Montana Academy group homes and there were a lot of concerns when they came through and no problems came up. He sees this as a benefit to this area and he commends Ms. Bumke and everyone who has worked so hard. Graham asked for the objective of the program and Dean-Ruel said the objective is to assist them to graduate, and they would not live there indefinitely. After graduation they will hook the kids up with community resources for college or help them land a good job. There is some discussion to set them up with apartments in the future. Graham asked the youngest age of the kids who would live there Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2016 Page14 and Dean-Ruel said high school age, 14-15 on up, and the length of stay would be on a case -by -case basis. The main point is to try and get parental or guardian consent for them to be at the house and if all of the options with family are exhausted then they would refer them to Child Protective Services. Loreh said he doesn't want to be dismissive as a board of the gentleman who wrote the letter with some obvious real concerns and he hopes that this person has had the opportunity to see the support of the community. Lorch said he would fully expect that the Sparrow's Nest organization is going to be a good neighbor and hopefully reach out, and if there are any major problems that there will be a conversation between neighbors. ROLL CALL I The motion passed unanimously, on a roll call vote. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT A request from the City of Kalispell for a series of updates to the AMENDMENTS zoning ordinance. Every few years, the City initiates a set of text amendments to improve wording, clarify sections of the ordinance where needed, to address new technologies and changes in the community and to keep the ordinance operating in an effective, user-friendly manner. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen, representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed staff report #KZTA-16-02 for the board. Sorensen reviewed the following amendments: (Additional information can be reviewed in the staff report on the city's website) 1) Increase maximum heights in all H, B, I and P zones from 40 feet to a proposed 60 feet and providing for a conditional use permit for heights above 60 feet; 2) Increase the maximum height in the RA-1 zone from 35 feet to 40 feet; 3) Eliminate the current CUP requirements for additional height; 4) Reducing certain accessory structure setbacks when the structure is located to the rear of the primary building; • There was some discussion regarding the possibility of allowing two structures meeting on the property line, with 0 setbacks and Sorensen said building codes would take care of most of these issues. Lorch asked for further clarification, which Sorensen provided. Sorensen added in the older part of town there are hundreds if not thousands of non -conforming accessory structures in the back yard and this change would allow owners to do major repairs Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2016 Page 15 without the previous need to tear down the structure and move it back 5 feet to meet the setback. Further discussion was held. 5) Clarify the ability to co -locate cellular service antennae; 6) Clarifying size requirements for site built as opposed to manufactured homes; 7) Reducing the required parking for multi -family dwellings from 2 spaces to 1.5 spaces per unit; 8) Clarify existing language within the off-street parking design chapter to provide more consistency; 9) Change the measurement line for site lighting from the right-of- way line to the curb line; 10) Changing the responsibility of providing property ownership lists from the applicant to the City; 11) Explicitly including doggie day-care within the definition of kennels; 12) Reduce parking requirement for Core Area Zone by 50%; 13) New regulations pertaining to VRBO and similar uses in residential zones; • Sorensen reported they researched how VRBO's are handled in Whitefish and in Colorado and borrowed a lot of language from the Whitefish ordinance that they had just adopted. Staff also considered the comments and concerns that the board had and what staff took from that work session is that they were comfortable in allowing VRBO's if there was an administrative conditional use permit and certain restrictions were in place. Sorensen reviewed the proposed changes. There was discussion regarding the posting of a contact person's name and phone # on the outside of the VRBO to handle any issues that may come up. Osorio-Khor asked if the VRBO's would be located in residential areas or in commercial areas and Sorensen said residential areas. She said the reservations are usually placed through the internet and a requirement is that there be a number for 24 hour contact. Is this posting of the contact information for the neighbors or the renters and Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2016 Page 16 Lorch said for the neighbors? Lorch noted staff did a good job addressing the concerns of the board regarding VRBO's 14) Expanding allowed microbrewery uses to include wineries, distilleries, and tasting rooms; and 15) Clarify existing language relating to casinos. PUBLIC HEARING No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Kauffman moved and Pesola seconded a motion to adopt Staff Report #KZTA-16-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendments be adopted as provided in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Young agreed staff did a good job on these amendments. Jentz noted he had just attended a conference that specifically addressed VRBO's and he shared what he learned with the board. Additional discussion was held regarding enforcement. Osorio-Khor noted when properties do not fulfill the promise of how they are advertised they do get rating on the internet sites and people will just not rent them anymore, which is a type of self - regulation. She feels that VRBO standards in place for the business districts should be the same for these businesses in residential districts. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously, on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS: SOUTH KALISPELL URBAN CTA Architects was hired to update the South Kalispell Urban RENEWAL PLAN Renewal Plan. The urban renewal plan was first adopted in 1996 and addressed a host of issues, many of which have been accomplished. CTA has now completed the plan update. The plan contains an executive summary, a series of recommendations for the South Kalispell area and provides 5 different scenarios for the future of the airport property. The 5 scenarios include keeping the airport and management as it is today using city funding to maintain the operational status of the airport, closing the airport, requesting FAA funding for the airport, incorporation of the airport property into an Airport Authority and finally privatizing the airport. The plan boundary is generally bound by 181h Street to the north, Cemetery Road to the south, Airport Road to the West and U.S. 93 to the east. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2016 Page 17 STAFF REPORT & BOARD Tom Jentz, representing the Kalispell Planning Department DISCUSSION provided an overview of the planning process to -date and the board's modifications that have been incorporated into the South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan. • The depreciation that was shown on Page 25, Figure 15 was moved to the Appendix for ease of the reader. • Alternative 2, Page 30, specifically spoke to if the airport was closed. The consultants went through and verified their numbers to buyout those leases and decommission the airport which is $3.1 million. • Alternative 3, page 34, which was to keep the airport as it is but to seek FAA funding for basic improvements necessary to keep the airport open as a B-1 airport. The option of seeking FAA funding is not realistic at this point. Young asked why the funding was taken out of the report as he thought the change would clarify that the B-1 airport was taken off the table because of the referendum but the table would be a way to look at what the costs would be for improvements to a B-2 airport. Jentz noted the Pro Forma for Alternative 3 is on page 73 of the Appendix. Further discussion was held. There was lengthy discussion on the plan being focused on the airport, and material that was gathered prior to the referendum and Lorch and Osorio-Khor felt it was not complete. Young and Kauffman also agreed. Graham noted that the board's job is not to go through the plan in detail and select a viable option but to decide if this study falls within the parameters of the growth policy. Jentz said the consultant was tasked with looking at the South Kalispell area and developing five scenarios for the airport. Jentz noted that the airport is a key component in what happens in the rest of South Kalispell. Council will ultimately make a decision of what scenario to select. Jentz added the consultants prepared the plan based on the scope of work that was provided to them and he feels that was accomplished. The board is now charged with making a recommendation to the city council on whether or not to adopt the plan. Osorio-Khor stated that she cannot support the plan, and she will be voting against it. Further discussion was held on areas that the plan is lacking, extending the leases at the airport in a effort to reduce the amount of buy back, the TIF district v. the plan area, the airport options, and the process from this point. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2016 Page 18 Jentz reminded the board that this is not a brand new South Kalispell Renewal Plan, the original document was written in 1996, had 5 points and the focus of the plan was to remove the athletic facilities from around the airport and use those lands to develop and redevelop for commercial uses, which it did and the proceeds from all those sales were reinvested back into the airport. Now we are at a point that we are updating an existing plan, focused on what to do with the TIF monies and what to do with the airport. The area was expanded to all of South Kalispell to try and benefit from having a consultant who was already looking at the airport. Kauffman noted there is a typo on page 18 that states the Libby airport is 48 miles away from the Kalispell City Airport which is much further. Jentz noted staff would take a look at that. Lorch noted on page 16, bottom left states: Alternative 3 was explored as ARC BI standard improvements option but the FAA indicated funding would not be available... Lorch suggested that the wording be changed to stronger language such as funding cannot be available. Jentz said the statement was correct and explained the staff was in contact with the FAA, however the contractor was not and they explored it as far as they could. Lorch said it should say the same thing throughout. Osorio-Khor asked if there was any interest from the board in taking this back to a work session and do some more work on it and Graham said no because the work that she is suggesting is outside the scope of what the city council told this engineer to do. QUESTION & ROLL CALL The vote to discontinue discussion and approve the motion was approved on a roll call vote of 5 in favor and 2 opposed. The board recommends to the city council that the April 2016 South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan is found to comply with the Kalispell Growth Policy and should be forwarded onto the city council for final consideration and action. The motion was approved on a roll call vote of 5 in favor and 2 opposed. NEW BUSINESS: Jentz noted there will be meeting on a CUP for several townhouses on Northwest Lane near the middle school; an agency exemption from FVCC for student housing on campus; and a work session on the courthouse couplet on May 10, 2016. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. President Graham presented a certificate to Matt Regier for his service on the planning board. He thanked him for his service. Osorio-Khor stated she feels that Mr. Regier has served the board very well and she personally has appreciated his work and his Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2016 Page19 reasonable approach to planning. She thanked all board members and Tom Jentz for affording her this opportunity to serve on the board via teleconference. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:30 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next regular planning board meeting is scheduled for May 10, 2016 beginning at 7:00 p.m. and located in the Kalispell City Council Chambers, 201 1" Avenue East, Kalispell. /s/Charles Pesola for Chad Graham President APPROVED as submitted: 05/10/16 /s/Michelle Anderson Michelle Anderson Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2016 Page 110 RJ N a a a I S, E� T f N -\ uy\ `t t C w c o"4- k rN\QA e. _o_. � Ce 07-31-2016 ZONING FOR SHORT-TERM RESIDENTIAL RENTALS (VRBO'S--VACATION RENTALS BY OWNER) We, the undersigned residents of the Glacier Village Greens community, Kalispell, Mt., respectfully request that we be excluded from any ordinance allowing VRBO's. 1. Glacier Village Greens is a congested area with many homes -- all having small yards. 2. There are only streets, no specific blocks. 3. The majority of residents are elderly and moved to this golfing and retirement community because of its quiet, low-key atmosphere. NAME ADDRESS PHONE SIGNATURE (PRINT) NUMBER ia2 MOP, Pr_ - ,- N � 2 a § = k -0 " V) % / e / E 0 \ k 5 # a @ " / / 0 2 2 a) ) ƒ 0 0 / ( a a c S 2 c= o M 4 E m / 7 - > & ,• m \ E / \ .I-- I (A e \ \ 4- ± ° ?%— C:s± th C % \ 2 2 O G E 2 ro § 2 m § ( � 0 \ (D q :0/ / C ) E / 7 ER/ \ay = 7 E c e E 'E & & \ \ / on C 3 2 \ / ® e [ $ 9 ) ) / § = k a ra \ Ln - �72 q cR 6 = ° / 4- Qj � O p o a o% « 2 " ® > m c > « / d / \ ( e > m 3 @ / ^ § E / 0 c e 4- » \ 4 c \ / W tw 0 e o 2 u ® 7 e ) \ / ) \ § 6 ) \§ 2\ 2 e 3 Ln txo \/ / / /= 0 / 2� % t3: ± m=/ ? — \ i E cc \ $ 0 \ § _ � ® \ - y 2 E// % IA 5 f >% 2 / 7 § � (U ® ® - 0 \ m }% m e$ E E �/ & / 2 % / ) M ? % c ? g � 2 . e o a e c o. e §± & E E m e 7 3 C:% 2 2 / % a 2 = / / \ f \ 4.1 / E E 4 S q / § > / Lq / i \ ° $ o -0 -a 2 3 & / E / {>/ 2-0/ƒ m -c \ g o / ƒ e E \ E > c ( 2 E , \ > u m e ƒ / 2 § \ k E ƒ / k / / G m % U G k § — e f � a)o o._ " / \ m M ® G > a e o 2 to E t®° § t / \ a.\ f « / E � t« & 2■ o 2 e ° e § \ e � (A w (A n O $ 5 k / C m e C d ( LA m ai \ S k W00cl 2 ® % k ® / cc V 2 / Qj E / / \ v \ LL L J } j � \ / % 2 \ / � ~ % / / § e E E (U § E 3 / / [ 1 \ E / / / Ln \ ) \ \ § t \ § % % / / \ / / § k / } » / e E / 0 a J M \ 2 R \ k § 41 \ \ 3 % $ g £ / .} m > ./ 7 E & E § / (U / 41 \ c - 41 IA a j ai E � k / / / \ � / - \ k a \ _ \ $ \ ._ 2 # � p j / 4� ƒ § 2 / / / / u a � 41 ± % \ # 2 / i / 2 m E E R ® m 2 2 / / / / / \ ? ƒ � o O U U cd O �. O U O 7� Cd > bA , U Cd U i- U U 4. U N Cd � 1= O C�j c� � U •� � rj w c td n O O D U M in, .: cd U co O U U U cd O E Q .� M � cn V s r— cn O �. U r-1 al, o cn cd U v O O ccd 7� O cn u N L— v aJ O =� bJ) =1 cd bA 4 cd V v cd U �' U s ar U cd D U p U 7 v cd lJ ZG cn cd O U U O _O cn M -x O cn 4O . --- yU. 03 rpcd p U O U U N'. "C� O cn m u 0 O p U r p N ¢ OU aj yp r� U ^- cz cn cd O0 N O 3^ cz 4 'i cd LL LAF— (A 6 A O cCi a3 L6 U O U cn U p �"+ C6 En O O bA U 'C3 O t+. ZO cn O UO CO (1) y CA 'ncd U by N p 'zp O N U O N N U to E"' 't �O ' •� W 4 N 40 H N U c � U v q3 C-- 3= con C-' N 0 bn �8 0 0 �� M ua 03 z �a o cd d% 4- 1411 c •S-�'' e�••� too O Q� p a� O _O � O Cd '^ to •.�-� O M �A Go � � N N •rw ~ � O CA N �� � "O v) .� 'G 4° cd U crs U U O W U "CS U O F CA r' cd C U U U � U-15 — •--+ U ,7 cd C -- Cl) cz: N CITY COUNCIL MEETING - VRBO DISCUSSIOIN SEPTEMBER 12, 2016 MY NAME IS FRED ZAVODNY, I LIVE AT 46 E. NICKLAUS AVE. IN VILLAGE GREENS. I AM ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY IN THE VILLAGE GREENS COMMUNITY - BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE. FIRST AND FOREMOST VILLAGE GREENS IS A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS INVESTED IN THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT IS A QUIET, SAFE, AND COMFORTABLE PLACE TO LIVE. NEIGHBORS WATCH OUT FOR EACH OTHER AND A NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAM IS IN PLACE. IMPOSING A VRBO ON THE COMMUNITY WOULD RESULT IN A TRANSIENT COMPONENT THAT WOULD UPSET THE NEIGHBORHOOD BALANCE WE HAVE WORKED VERY HARD TO MAINTAIN. THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GREENS HAVE SIGNED AND SUBMITTED A PETITION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK ASKING THAT VILLAGE GREENS BE EXEMPT FROM ANY AND ALL ZONING AMENDMENTS OR CITY COUNCIL ACTION THAT WOULD ALLOW VRBO'S IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. I AM ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO RESPECT THE INTENT OF THE PETITION AND ACT IN OUR FAVOR. PERMITTING VRBO'S IN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL ZONES IS THE SAME AS CHANGING THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME. I DO NOT KNOW OF ANYONE WHO WOULD WANT NEW NEIGHBORS EVERY COUPLE OF DAYS. WITH THE UNCERTAINTY OF WHO, HOW MANY, AND HOW OFTEN ANY GIVEN VRBO WILL BE OCCUPIED, I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT ONE NEXT DOOR TO ME. CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 MY NAME IS FRED ZAVODNY. I LIVE AT 46 E. NICKLAUS AVE. IN VILLAGE GREENS. THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GREENS PRESENTED THE CITY OF KALISPELL WITH A PETITION ASKING TO BE EXEMPT FROM ANY CITY COUNCIL ACTION PERMITTING VRBO'S IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. THIS IS A COPY OF THE PETITION. THE 335 RESIDENTS THAT SIGNED THE PETITION WOULD FILL THIS COUNCIL CHAMBERS AS WELL AS THE ADJOINING FOYER. THE PETITION REPRESENTS EACH OF THE 335 RESIDENTS TAKING THEIR TURN AT THIS PODIUM ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO EXEMPT VILLAGE GREENS FROM ANY CITY COUNCIL ACTION PERMITTING VRBO'S IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. THE PRIMARY REASON FOR INVESTING IN VILLAGE GREENS IS BECAUSE IT IS A STABLE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. VRBO'S CAN IMPACT THE STABILITY OF ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. BY THEIR NATURE THEY INTRODUCE AN UNKNOWN TRANSIENT COMPONENT TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. WITH A VRBO IT IS LIKELY THAT RESIDENTS WILL HAVE DIFFERENT NEIGHBORS EVERY COUPLE OF DAYS. VRBO'S CAN ALSO HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES, NOT NECESSARILY DURING THE APPRAISAL PROCESS, BUT CERTAINLY IN DETERMINING WHAT THE OPEN MARKET IS WILLING TO VALUE A PROPERTY ADJACENT TO A VRBO AT THE TIME OF SALE. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE IS TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY; AND TO PROMOTE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY. EVEN THOUGH I AM ADVOCATING FOR VILLAGE GREENS, ANY ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT THAT ALLOWS SHORT TERM RENTALS THROUGHOUT THE CITY IS IN OPPOSITION TO THE INTENTIONS, GOALS, POLICIES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY. REMOVING LIVING UNITS OUT OF THE RENTAL MARKET IN FAVOR OF VRBO'S IS CONTRARY TO EVERYTHING THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ADVOCACY GROUPS ARE WORKING TOWARD IN TERMS OF AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE HOUSING. : � A 0 7 % 7 E 6 e 2 e a �% �f± / / 0 ./ / : / g7U� �/ 2 \ % ± 3 co 2 / / E \ u 0 U 0 0 § w ® / 0 w Li. t o w m 0 g 0 c E 0 2 D ' @ o £ u \ 0 / 0 / 0 2 2 0 ® E ° \ � \ § � a m � � 2 E § 0 E ± 2 \ e \ & % m \ o n � R � 2 ai o � % £ £ 0 § Co ƒ k \ cu / E 4� k �2 [ : aj M E $ ± : 2 E { \ £ � / ° & c ® m 7 E o 0 �° 2 ® / % \ U { v\ ) on@ ca 0 7 2 to6 .g £ 5 \ V) m M - 'Q .g � £ 2 E c ( _ £ E O ± § � / �•- � � U / \ / u •- / u u 0- 2 � » � ro_ — u ± u _ e n 0 0 0/ I t 0 2 >' >' £ E o " -0 0' 09 ) / k E / / ° ® � / ® ® = k� 2 % $. ) m § e -% �� 0E k ° � ° E y \ 0 / 0 2 / 76 0`0 n E E - \ w 0 0 .§ _� w E u 0 k ^ 0 ° 0� \ / 2 k 3 " � .- 2 § 0 m 0 aj o - 3 F ± CA{ & j bD m 4— 3 $ R M 0 \ j ® ® ƒ k \ n k u LA Y x o ca ° 0 S�. O ¢ U p O o Q. 0 O > o O u "', X O� N USA' N 0cn Cq3 4- bo pO dJ GO CIO p w p c rn Z op O.O�...�' to Cd bb ,.ti r, N O p "� bA s. +� cd 4. 4w 7d •.- cd v� rn N U Lco " 5 N N � Cd O O ¢ c r �° •" �,O o > — OCd °' o N �% O O cn N N N s� 4.1 O N N cC - 4. cad N O � cH rn cc O N Cr 'n -^ O cd O p p Qy to U O y O 4-1(V > '� U CD > .-Li 0 p p y N O V 41 c.i ,�+ to O cd p p m O ! bb �..1��-.ail cd O bAGOO �. to O _ p co o p O a > .s� F.o'er bb 1 U cd 0 c 00 O O 0 C •bp y O Oate-' c> Q.. v Q. U cd cd p _ o by `n 3 a� • .. o. Q __ cd �, 3 �, � x 3 LL Ln H A F.� CK O F•�i S�. ice-. a�-+ Q. 0 o 03 v o p H ti 00 N Memo regarding standards for Short -Term Rentals To: The Kalispell City Council RE: 10-10-16 Work Session The following information is provided to help you and city residents compare the proposed short-term rental provisions before you and ways they might be amended or enhanced. This memo covers three main areas for review: 1. Options for where STR's are allowed. Comparisons of how other cities in our region are addressing this question are covered in the chart below. 2. Conditions to ensure that STR's preserve neighborhood character, and provide predictability for established neighborhoods, encourage efficient use of housing and infrastructure, and promote public health, safety, and welfare. Lists of additional conditions, or variations of wording of conditions or standards, are provided to help in crafting a policy than considers a variety of potential issues. 3. Sample Definitions from other towns are provided to help consider how you want to clearly define a STR. 4. An excerpt of a memo from Hood River Oregon that reviewed options for standards that define where SDR's are located. 5. Links to some miscellaneous articles on STRs. 1. Comparison of where communities allow short-term rentals (STRs) City Zones STR's allowed in No. of currently permitted units in city Kalispell Proposed that Short-Term/Vacation Rentals be allowed in all districts as an administrative conditional use permit Whitefish Short-Term/Vacation Rentals are allowed in The number of short-term only the following zoning districts: rentals I have since we started M _WB-2 (Secondary Business District) permitting in 2013 is not very M _WB-3 (General Business District) large. There are a number of M _WRR-1 (Low -Density Resort Residential them out there that have not District) gotten permits, and either could M _WRR-2 (Medium -Density Resort Residential be approved or are zoning District) violations. How many of those M _WRB-1 (Limited Resort Business District) there are out there I don't M _WRB-2 (General Resort Business District) know. But here are the numbers that I do have: Short-term rentals are not allowed in all 2013 = 1 residential neighborhoods because they can 2014 = 5 have negative effects including, but not limited 2015 = 5 to noise and traffic. In addition, short-term 2016 = 11 1 rentals remove long-term rentals from the available pool within our community Total = 22 increasing costs for full-time residents Bailey Minnich, AICP, CFM Planner II City of Whitefish Columbia Falls The Vacation Rentals may apply for an administrative conditional use permit within the CSAG-20; CSAG-10; CSAG-5; CR-1; CR-2; CR-3; CR-4; CR-5; and CRA-1 zoning districts. Vacation Rentals within the CB-2, CB-4 and CB-5 are permitted uses Helena No regulations currently addressing short-term rentals Missoula Currently only allowed in commercial and industrial zones. Consideration of new draft proposes adding some STD's in residential areas is still being debated---Draft---No more than one Tourist Home unit is permitted per parcel in R215, R80, R40, R20, R8, R5.4, and R3 zoning districts. No more than two units per building may be used as a Tourist Home in RT2.7, RT10, RT5.4, RM2.7, MR1.5, RM1, RM0.5 and RMH zoning districts. Bozeman This summer the City of Bozeman passed interim zoning to halt STR's in their low density housing districts. Extended Stay Lodging, and any other similar use such as a short term rental or a vacation rental, is hereby repealed and suspended as a conditionally permitted use in R-1, R-2, R-S, and NEHMU zoning districts until six (6) months from the effective date of this Ordinance or such time as the City Commission adopts an ordinance(s) authorizing such use, whichever is sooner. Billings MT No regulations found Jackson Hole, WY STR's only in zones designated as lodging ? areas Bolder, Colorado Boulder, Colorado, has enacted licensing requirements and restricted short-term rentals to primary residences owned by individuals, banning the practice with properties owned by legal entities like corporations or partnerships. Durango, Durango, Colorado has capped the total Colorado number of vacation rentals in some of its neighborhoods, also generally limiting the number of short-term rentals to one per block. Bend, Oregon Bend requires a 250-foot distance between new rentals. Sandpoint, Idaho Within the residential zones, no vacation rental shall be located within three hundred feet (300') of a parcel on which any other vacation rental is located, except as provided herein. 1. Where the vacation rental unit is included in a multi -unit development constructed for seasonal or short-term occupancy. a. Such development must include not less than ten (10) units. b. Such development must include property that adjoins the waterfront. c. Such development must include recreational amenities for its tenants. 2. Where approved for a greater vacation rental density as part of an approved planned unit development. Existing approved planned unit developments must be formally amended to be eligible for this greater density. 3. Where the vacation rental existed prior to adoption of this chapter as provided for in subsection B 1 of this section. The three hundred foot (300") buffer distance shall be measured from the edges of the legally described lot on which the vacation rental home is located but shall not include lot boundaries of units operating in accordance with subsection G1 of this section. Spokane, WA Appear to be permitted in most residential districts. 2. Additional Conditions' for consideration that some communities include in short- term rental standards include: • Property Owners - A list of all the property owners of the short-term rental including names, addresses and telephone numbers. • Site Plan - A site plan, drawn to scale, showing the location of buildings and required parking. • Floor Plan - A floor plan identifying the number of bedrooms proposed for use. • Property Management Plan - A property management plan demonstrating how the short- term rental will be managed and how impacts to neighboring properties will be minimized; specifically, nuisances, parking and garbage. The property management plan shall also include the name, address and telephone number of local points of contacts available to respond immediately to complaints and promptly remedy any violation of these standards. • Certification of the accuracy of the information submitted and agreement to comply with the conditions of the permit. • Appearance and Identification - The exterior of the building(s) shall retain a residential appearance with house numbers maintained on the front of the building and visible from the street or road. No junk or garbage shall be allowed to accumulate in any yards and all vehicles shall park in designated parking areas.2 • Limits to number of units rented on a single property. On properties containing both a residential dwelling and an accessory residential dwelling, only one residential structure may be rented out as a short-term rental, but not both. • Use of other shelter types. No recreational vehicle, travel trailer, or tent or other temporary shelter shall be used in conjunction with the short-term rental. • Garage Access. If the garage is to be utilized to meet the parking requirement, a photo of the interior of the garage shall be submitted to show the garage is available for parking. The garage shall continually be available for guest parking as long as the short-term rental permit is valid. • Access - Road access to the short-term rental shall meet minimum city road standards and shall be adequately maintained and remain clear of obstructions, including illegally parked cars, recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, junk, etc., to ensure the unimpeded passage of emergency vehicles and other vehicular traffic. • Nuisances and Garbage - The short-term rental shall be operated in a way that will prevent disturbances to neighboring properties not typical of a residential neighborhood, including, but not limited to: loud music and noises, excessive traffic, junk/debris accumulation in the yards, garbage removal, trespassing, or excess vehicles, boats or recreational vehicles parked in the streets in front of the rental. Said provisions shall be documented in the Property Management Plan. 1 Adapted from the following sources: http:/lhrccd.co.hoodriver.or.us/images/uploads/documents/0/02B Staff Memo Issues Exhibits 4.lpdf httr)://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentCenter/View/35424 z The issue of the problem with the upkeep of long-term rentals and the need for safety standards like those being considered for application to STR's was made clear in hearings to date. This type of requirement as well as others in this list might ought to be considered for long-term rentals as well. 11 • Pets - Pets shall be secured at all times while on the property and nuisance barking by pets is prohibited. • Signage - No on or off -premise signage or advertising is permitted. • Federal, State & Local Laws - The short-term rental shall meet all applicable State and local health, safety laws and building codes. • Compliance with Applicable Building Code --Tourist Homes shall meet all applicable building codes, which may include requirements for safe sleeping rooms such as egress windows, smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors. • Other - Other conditions may be imposed, such as additional parking, improved access, fencing, landscaping, or minimum screening to ensure the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding residential character. • Licensing requirements —A license for a short-term rental may not be issued for residences owned by legal entities like corporations or partnerships .3 • Covenants ---These STR regulations are not intended to interfere with, abrogate, or annul any legal or lawful private Homeowner association covenants that are in effect in any specific subdivision. • Covenants--- Proof in the form of a notary statement that the proposal complies with current (latest version filed with the County Clerk and Treasurer) applicable private covenants or that no such private covenants exist that restrict the proposed use. • Insurance--- Proof of commercial liability insurance. • Denial or Revocation of License --- If it is determined that three violations of any City ordinance or law relating to Tourist Home rentals, including other provisions of the zoning or noise code have occurred within one calendar year, the license to operate a Tourist Home rental may be revoked by a 2/3 majority vote of City Council. • Smoke Detectors and Egress Windows --Each unit will provide a sign -off of the Fire Marshall from the Columbia Falls Fire Department that indicates the dwelling has smoke detectors and egress windows for each bedroom. • Inspection for Compliance with Existing Zoning-- An inspection of the unit by the Zoning Administrator or his/her designee shall ensure that the dwelling in question conforms to the land use provisions of the Columbia Falls Zoning Ordinance. • Monitoring and Advertising ---All short term rentals must maintain a guest logbook. It must include the names and home addresses of guests, guest's license plate numbers if traveling by car, dates of stay, and the room assigned to each guest. The log must be available for inspection by city staff upon request. • Contents of advertising ---All advertised listings for the short-term rental must include your short-term license number. • No sale of food or drink ---this provision pops up in many of the short-term rental ordinances reviewed. • Rental Period more than two day--- Rentals must be for a period of two (2) or more days and only one rental during a five (5) day period is permitted. Rentals for less than two (2) days shall be considered a motel or bed and breakfast use and regulated accordingly. Vacation homes are also commonly referred to as tourist homes or vacation rentals. 3 Communities are increasingly seeing investment groups coming in to cities to buy up housing stock for a commercial investment. Many communities are seeking to limit this type of investment by limiting the number of short-term rentals such investment groups can own and market as STR's. See also No more than one vacation rental unit per owner on page 6 5 No more than one vacation rental unit per owner--- If the owner is a natural person, or where the natural person has transferred his property to a trust where the natural person is the trustor, that person can have an ownership right, title, or interest in no more than one dwelling unit that has a vacation rental permit. If the owner is a business entity such as a partnership, a corporation, a Iimited liability company, a limited partnership, a limited liability partnership or similar entity, any person who owns an interest in that business entity shall be considered an owner and such a person can have an ownership right, title, or interest in no more than one dwelling unit that has a vacation rental permit. (From Sandpoint Idaho — addresses concerns of investment groups coming in and buying up a towns rental stock.) Rental permit shall be revoked when the permit holder sells or transfers the real property ----A vacation rental permit is issued to a specific owner of a dwelling unit. The vacation rental permit shall be revoked when the permit holder sells or transfers the real property, which was rented pursuant to the vacation rental permit except as provided below. For purposes of this section, "sale or transfer" shall mean any change of ownership during the lifetime of the permit holder or after the death of the permit holder whether there is consideration or not except a change in ownership where title is held in survivorship with a spouse or child or transfers on the owner's death to a trust which benefits only a spouse or child for their lifetime. A permit holder may transfer ownership of the real property to: a trustee, a limited liability company, a corporation, a partnership, a limited partnership, a limited liability partnership, or other similar entity and not be subject to permit revocation pursuant to this section so long as the transferor lives and remains the only owner of the entity. Length of permit and renewal process --The permit is valid for one year, or the remainder of the calendar year in which the permit is issued, and must be renewed annually. Renewal of the permit requires a complete permit application and fee no later than January 1 for the calendar year. If a complete application and applicable fee have not been received by the city within forty five (45) days of the annual renewal date, the vacation home rental occupancy of the dwelling unit shall be conclusively presumed to be discontinued and the city shall commence the revocation of the permit pursuant to the procedure described in subsection 3- 12-SC5 of this chapter. 3. Definitions: Hood River, Oregon ---SHORT-TERM RENTAL: A dwelling unit or other building or any portion thereof that is available or advertised, or listed by an agent, for use, rent, or occupancy for a period of time that is less than 30 consecutive days. Short -Term Rentals does not include guest quarters, bed and breakfast facilities, hotels, or other types of lodging permitted to operate in accordance with this Ordinance. Missoula-- A Tourist Home is a private home or condominium that is not occupied by an owner or manager and is rented, leased, or furnished in its entirety to transient guests on a daily or weekly basis. Tourist homes are also known as "vacation rentals" or "vacation rental by owner." Columbia Falls--- Residential. A structure regularly used by its occupants as a permanent place of abode, which is made one's home as opposed to one's place of business and which has housekeeping and cooking facilities for its occupants only. In situations where a dwelling is rented or leased, a residential use would involve lease periods of one month or more. 2 Vacation Rental. A residential use that allows paid visitors to rent an entire house, townhouse unit, condominium unit, apartment or other residence located in the applicable zoning district for a period of between one and thirty days. In Columbia Falls, this use requires an Administrative Conditional Use Permit if proposed in suburban agricultural and residential zoning districts. Vacation rentals are not Bed and Breakfast, Hostel, Lodge, Motel or Hotel establishments and shall not provide food or beverages for sale on premises or with the rental of the dwelling. Whitefish--- A short-term residential rental, some times referred to as a vacation rental, is the rental of a residential unit for less than 30 consecutive days. A short-term rental is not a bed and breakfast, hostel, hotel or motel. Sandpoint, ID- 3-12-2: DEFINITIONS: LOCAL CONTACT PERSON: An area property manager, owner, or agent of the owner, who is readily available and authorized to respond to tenant and neighborhood or city questions or concerns. See subsection 3-12-4A2d of this chapter for specific requirements for local contact person. MANAGING AGENCY OR AGENT: A person, firm or agency representing the owner of the tourist home rental, or a person, firm or agency owning the tourist home rental. OWNER: The person or entity that holds legal and/or equitable title to the private property. A long-term lease satisfies the equitable title provision if the legal owner consents to licensing. The owner may act through an agent or property manager, but the owner shall remain responsible for compliance with these provisions. VACATION HOME: A residence, including a single-family unit or a multi -family unit, which is rented for the purpose of overnight lodging for a period of not less than two (2) days and not more than thirty (30) days. Rentals must be for a period of two (2) or more days and only one rental during a five (5) day period is permitted. Rentals for less than two (2) days shall be considered a motel or bed and breakfast use and regulated accordingly. Vacation homes are also commonly referred to as tourist homes or vacation rentals. VACATION HOME RENTAL OCCUPANCY: The use of a dwelling unit by any person or group of persons who occupies or is entitled to occupy a dwelling unit for remuneration for a period of time less than thirty (30) but at least two (2) days, counting portions of days as full days. "Remuneration" means compensation, money, rent or other bargained for consideration given in return for occupancy, possession or use of real property. Home exchanges where money is not transferred shall be excluded from this definition. VACATIONER: Any person or persons who occupy, possess or are entitled to occupancy or possession by reason of any rental agreement, concession, permit, right of access, license, timesharing arrangement, or any other type of agreement where monetary transactions occur for a period of two (2) days and less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. (Ord. 1281, 5-15-2013) State of Montana ---Under MT State Law tourist homes are considered complete dwelling units rented for 29 days or less at a time. 4. Excerpt from Hood River Oregon on options for types of short-term rental provisions VI. IMPRACTICAL OPTIONS Option 1 — Status Quo / Inherent Right of Home Ownership Pros: Treating STRs as an inherent right of home ownership would be straightforward. Staff would just be told that this is the Board's policy and direct staff to implement it. At a staff level, nothing would change with current policy, practice or enforcement. No barriers to entry would exist and current STRs operators would be content. Cons: Does nothing to better monitor, manage and enforce STRs or allay growing community concerns. As a result of not having open dialogue on STR issues and exploring solutions, tension would remain in the community. Option 2 — Prohibition in All Zones Pros: Outright prohibition of STRs is pretty straightforward from a regulatory perspective. It would be clear to staff and the entire community that STRs were not lawful or permitted in any zone outside the UGB. Cons: The impact of total prohibition of STRs could be significant, as it would have downside consequences to a number of people and businesses. Unlawful STRs would continue to exist and enforcement would become tedious and a challenge. Additionally, it could affect the tourism industry. Nevertheless the impact of prohibiting STRs by area or by type of unit would depend on the scope of the prohibitions. Recommendation: It was recommended by the Board and staff to not pursue either Option 1 or Option 2. VII. MORE CONVENTIONAL OPTIONS & STRATIGIES Option 3 — Fixed Cap Planning Session 7 STRs Description: A fixed cap is a quantitative restriction that would limit the number or percentage of STRs in the county. The scale of impact depends on the current concentration of STRs and the imposed concentration limit. The county could limit the number or concentration of STRs in specific unincorporated communities, certain geographic areas of the county or per zoning district. Other fixed -cap or quantitative schemes include: setting a minimum property size, setting a minimum distance between STRs, limiting the number per street segment, or setting limits by census tract. Pros: A fixed -cap / quantitative restriction may constitute a reasonable compromise position in circumstances where community support is divided on a proposed STR ban. Cons: For property owners desiring to enter the STR market after the effective date of a STR ordinance, a fixed -cap restriction may act as a barrier to entry. The regulatory scheme does not necessarily promote flexibility and fairness. Option 4 — Prohibit in Certain Zone Districts Description: Prohibiting STRs in certain zone districts and allowing in other zones is an indirect way of prioritizing community values, goals and uses. This approach would strongly limit STRs by not allowing them on certain zoned lands such as EFU, Forest or Industrial. It would be a way to prioritize protection of farm and forest uses over non -resource land related goals and to protect the finite amount of industrial zoned land in the county. Additionally, EFU zoned land contains a variety of buildings (e.g., pickers' cabins, out buildings, accessory buildings, relative help dwellings, and second dwellings) that are ripe to be converted to STRs. Pros: This approach would protect from allowing additional residential development and use on resource or industrial zoned lands. By not allowing STRs on EFU, these lands in theory stay more committed to agricultural production. If it is felt resource zoned lands should be used for resource purposes and industrial zoned land should be used for industrial purposes, this is a way to further preserve that notion. Cons: This approach would act as a barrier to entry and deprive certain people of additional income. The size of resource -zoned properties really varies. It could be because of the larger sizes of resource -zoned properties that there are many STR opportunities that don't impact the neighborhood character, compatibility, or farm and forest uses. Consideration — Owner Occupied I Owner-Onsite Exemptions: If STRs are prohibited or strongly limited, an exception that could allow STRs would be allowing them in dwellings where the unit owner lives most or all of the year. For example, a STR could be allowed in a unit that the owner lives in for a minimum number of months of the year (e.g., an owner who lives in the unit nine months of the year and rents it out three months of the year). STRs could also be limited to properties where the owner lives "onsite," such as rental of one or two rooms in a house that the owner lives in. This strategy would primarily affect Planning Session 8 STRs STRs where the owner lives in the county part of the year or units where individual rooms are rented in an owner -occupied unit. Option 5 — No Limit & No Outright Prohibition Description: Having no limit on STRs in the county would require a permit to be reviewed and approved/or not by the county planning department. An applicant would submit an application and associated fee, which would then be noticed and reviewed against criteria intended to mitigate impacts. A typical type of application to do this is through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). However, applications could also be reviewed through a Land Use Permit (LUP). LUPs have previously been processed by the county for STRs (and example is attached as an Exhibit). Pros: This approach treats all areas of county equally and fairly. It does not eliminate STRs but decides on parameters for approving and managing them. Nobody is excluded from trying to enter the market, potential impacts are mitigated, and notice to neighbors is likely required. Issues addressed relative to allowing/or not in the county include those items mentioned in the Guiding Principles and Best Practices section below (e.g., noise, parking, occupancy, garbage, contact, renewal, revocation, inspection, etc.). For example, the planning department could find that, with using established review criteria, the use of an accessory building on EFU land as a STR could: a) occur without significantly compromising neighborhood compatibility; b) not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; and c) not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use. Cons: This approach does not protect resource or industrial lands. For example, it would likely lead to the conversion of agricultural and accessory buildings that were not intended for residential occupancy. Additionally, this could create frivolous objections and appeals, making approvals challenging and lengthy. Objections or appeals could be baseless claims, based on preconceived notions or predicted on just bad relationships in the neighborhood. A CUP process would be onerous to administer in light of the criteria and noticing requirements. It could be more manageable to permit STRs through a LUP. Lastly, adding STRs as a specific conditional use in the EFU zone would be problematic. As discussed, STRs would need to correlate with a use that is specifically listed in ORS 197.283. 0] Recommendation: Options 3 through 5 all have merit, have proven to be successful in other communities, and could be implemented in the county. A hybrid of the above options is realistic to consider. 5. Other news links to Cities working on the Short -Term Rental Issue Jackson Hole, WY • Residential short-term rental is defined in county code as "the rental of all or a portion of a house, townhouse, condominium, apartment, or other residence for less than thirty (30) days." • County law states, "no [residence] shall be rented for less than thirty (30) days unless specifically approved for residential short-term rental." • City code says essentially the same thing • Short-term rentals only allowed in designated lodging areas. • The prohibition requires that homeowners outside designated lodging areas rent their homes for no fewer than 30 days at a time. • httl2 //r, www..Ihnewsandguide.com/news/town county/short-term-home-rentals- banned/article d79f363e-c7cb-57bc-93e1-953e24e63059.htm1 Kalispell, MT With Influx of Vacation Rentals, Cities Grapple with New Concerns and Challenges http: / /flatheadbeacon.co m/2016/ 1O/04/influx-vacation-rentals-cities-grapple-new- concerns-challenges/ htt s:/ lwww.vrbo.com/vacati o n- rental susa mo ntan a.1 glacier-countr kalis ell Sandpoint, ID http:/Isterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book id=437&chapter id=18204 Bozeman, MT http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/city/bozeman-may-tackle-vacation-rental- regulation/article e3d08226-a643-5b06-89a9-6af769fc64d6.htm1 Crested Butte, Colorado "On the microscale, this makes economic sense. A homeowner can earn significantly more money renting for a week at holiday rates than to workaday townies for a season or a year. On a larger scale, though, peer -to -peer is pricing out the workers who pull drafts, wrench on bikes, and spin wood fired pizzas. "It's a clear economic gain for the owner, but a loss for the community," says Crested Butte Mayor Aaron Huckstep. "If a business can't find employees, they're going to have a tough time operating." Coveted mountain towns have long struggled to provide affordable housing, and peer -to -peer rentals are far from the only reason for a shortage. Many towns are in isolated valleys —think Banff, Stowe, or Telluride —which means there's limited land to build on. Meanwhile, second or third homes are common for an increasingly transient global elite, taking even more potential housing off the market." http: //www.mountainonline.com/short-term-rentals-mountain-towns/ Europe http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/06/european-cities-crackdown-airbnb/487169/ 10