[MPC Comment] Community Forum letter to MPC re: , Meeting Agenda Item #7, 5-C-17-OA ( Short-Term Rentals Ordinance) 1 message

Transcription

1 etty Jo ahan [ omment] ommunity Forum letter to re: , eeting genda tem #7, ( hort-erm entals rdinance) 1 message larrys55 via ommission <commission@knoxmpc.org> eply-o: larrys55@aol.com o: commission@knoxmpc.org ue, ct 10, 2017 at 2:57 : ommissioners F: arry ilverstein, ecretary-reasurer of ommunity Forum : ctober 10, 2017 : ctober 12, 2017, eeting genda tem #7, ( rdinance) ommunity Forum is an organization with representatives from many neighborhoods in noxville and nox ounty. he staff has recommended that you approve the roposed rdinance as drafted on pril 25, 2017, with one slight revision proposed by the ity. xcept for that slight revision, this is the same ordinance you voted to send to ity ouncil without recommendation at your ay 11, 2017, meeting. ommunity Forum, along with the following 9 neighborhood groups, has approved esolutions asking that hort-term entals be omitted from both -1 and -1 residential zoning districts. lice ell/pring ill Forest eights Fountain ity own all ingston ike-equoyah ills ssociation ond ap azewell ike-everly tation eighborhood esley eighbors ommunity ssociation est ills ommunity ssociation estmoreland ills omeowners ssociation. e respectfully request you amend the proposed rdinance to remove hort-term entals from -1 and -1 zoning districts. he professional staff report states "...that the language permitting ype (1) (owner occupied) s in all residential districts be maintained." he rationale offered for this recommendation compares -1 and -1 with -1 and -1 and -2. he staff states that, "s proposed, this revision (removal of -1 and -1 districts) would make distinctions among the ity's low density residential districts. he proposed distinctions, and different treatment, cannot be supported by the zoning code language identifying the general description of these districts. ll are described as areas for low density residential uses, with the goals of preserving existing neighborhoods and providing opportunities for the development of new low density neighborhoods." n response, we find the professional staff rationale to be inadequate and lacking in substance. Furthermore, the comparison of eneral escriptions is incorrect. nlike -1 and -1, the -1 eneral escription states that the district is designed for "low to medium population density". nd, unlike -1 and -1, the eneral escription of -1 and -2 states "he district is not intended for use on presently undeveloped land that is currently zoned as agriculture (-1). t should be used in the context of the prevalent existing development pattern." learly, -1 and -2, is not for the purpose of "providing opportunities for the development of new low density neighborhoods." he "eneral escription" is, however, but one section that defines each particular zoning district. t is the "ermitted ses" section, also included in each zoning district, which specifically defines each district and clearly distinguishes among the residential districts. t is disappointing that the taff report fails to address "ermitted ses in its rationale for its conclusion.

2 o let us look at "ermitted ses. nlike -1 and -1 and -2, -1 and -1 do not allow bed and breakfasts, accessory dwelling units and multi-dwelling structures--the very uses that are most similar to s. nd, unlike the newer zoning districts, -1 and -2 and lanned esidential, there are no protective mechanisms such as design standards or design plan review, in -1 and -1 zoning districts. he only protection in -1 and -1 is the list of "ermitted ses." ommunity Forum s June 26, 2017, letter to ity ouncil outlined thirteen reasons why hort-erm entals pose a real threat to the character and integrity of our -1 and -1 neighborhoods and therefore, are not appropriate for these zoning districts. -1 and -1 districts are made up of low density, single-family detached homes. -1 and -1 districts do not allow uses similar to hort-erm entals. nlike other residential zoning districts, -1 and -1 zoning districts do not allow apartments, bed and breakfasts, or rooming and boarding houses. -1 and -1 neighborhoods are primarily the older, traditional, single-family detached, suburban development areas of our city. heir location, narrow roads, and development design, have deemed them to be inappropriate zones for uses similar to hort-erm entals, such as bed and breakfasts, rooming and boarding houses and apartments. ikewise, -1 and -1 are not appropriate zoning districts for hort-erm entals. hort-erm entals are a commercial use. hy should this one commercial use be allowed in all residential zoning districts, including the residential districts that do not allow similar uses under the existing zoning rdinance? his rdinance would set a precedent for allowing other inappropriate uses in -1 and -1 zoning districts. ike all uses that are incompatible with the character of existing development, hort-erm entals will have a significant negative impact on -1 and -1 neighborhoods, and more importantly, on the quality of life of the homeowners living in these neighborhoods. hort-erm entals increase the general activity level in the area. hort-erm entals increase noise. hort-erm entals increase both on-street and off-street parking demands. he proposed ordinance states that the maximum occupancy, "...shall not exceed two (2) transients per bedroom plus two (2) additional transients;...the maximum occupancy of the shall not exceed 12 persons..." including all persons. typical 3-bedroom home could have eight (8) people staying in the home. ompare that number to the 2.39 average number of persons per household, 2011 to 2015, in nox ounty. (.. ensus Quick Facts.) hort-erm entals increase safety issues in neighborhoods. he experience with hort-erm entals in many cities has been increased noise and nuisance complaints. ome of the complaints are due to large, loud parties, and some are due to increased automobile-related noise and activity. he proposed rdinance does not contain an enforcement plan, and its provisions are generally not enforceable. he ity has said that they fear the tate egislature will remove all meaningful local control of hort-erm entals if local governments "prohibit" hort-erm entals. e are not requesting a prohibition. e are simply requesting that hort-term entals not be allowed in two residential zoning districts, -1 and -1, -- districts which do not allow similar uses. here are many residential zoning districts in noxville that allow uses similar to hort-erm entals, e.g., bed and breakfasts, rooming and boarding houses, apartments, etc. he ommunity Forum and other neighborhood associations across the tate are prepared to contact the tate egislature again next year to work to maintain local control of hort-erm entals. one of these issues were addressed in the taff report on the issue of whether hort-erm entals should not be allowed in -1 or -1 districts. hile the ity has not chosen to amend the Zoning rdinance, the inclusion of hort-erm entals in every residential zoning district in noxville, is definitely a zoning issue. ow can the inclusion of a use so unlike other uses allowed in -1 and -1--permitting a single-family home to be rented in its entirety by the day or week, when the owner does not even have to be present on the property, or in the city, or even in the country, not bring about a major and negative change in the character of the -1 and -1 zoning districts? uch a conclusion defies logic and is strongly disputed by the residents of -1 and -1 neighborhoods who would be impacted by this proposed rdinance.

3 ur Zoning rdinance clearly states what is and what is not permitted in each of our zoning districts. hen an owner asks to operate a use in a district that is not specifically listed as a "ermitted se" or "se ermitted on eview", the determines whether or not the requested use is similar to the uses that are specifically listed in the district. o, the appropriate question to ask is: hich currently permitted use in -1 or -1 is similar to a hort-erm ental? herefore, we conclude that the extremely limited analysis performed by the in just looking at eneral escriptions of zoning districts while ignoring other major issues is flawed. ny legislation to amend the ity of noxville ode of rdinance which will result in undermining the long established principles of the existing Zoning rdinance in such a direct and drastic way, should not be recommended for approval by. e ask that you amend the proposed rdinance to remove hort-erm entals from the -1 and -1 zoning districts. incerely, arry ilverstein ecretary-reasurer ommunity Forum 7808 heffield r. noxville, arrys55@aol.com -- his message was directed to commission@knoxmpc.org ommunity Forum letter to re docx 18

4 etty Jo ahan [ omment] roposed hort erm ental rdinance 1 message sandy gillespie <sandyg222@hotmail.com> eply-o: sandyg222@hotmail.com o: <commission@knoxmpc.org> ed, ct 11, 2017 at 2:06 ommissioners, he ingston ike-equoyah ills ssociation voted unanimously to oppose including -1 and - 1 neighborhoods in the proposed hort erm ental rdinance several months ago. urrently the Zoning ode does not allow uses similar to hort erm entals in -1 and -1 neighborhoods. am concerned that the new proposed ordinance is in direct conflict with, and erodes the protection of "ermitted ses" in -1 and -1 neighborhoods. hank you for considering our concern. incerely, andy illespie resident, ingston ike-equoyah ills ssociation -- his message was directed to commission@knoxmpc.org

5 etty Jo ahan [ omment] hort-term rentals in -1 districts 1 message Jesse ayshark <jmayshark@knoxvilletn.gov> ed, ct 11, 2017 at 11:45 eply-o: jmayshark@knoxvilletn.gov o: "commission@knoxmpc.org" <commission@knoxmpc.org> c: illiam yons <wlyons@knoxvilletn.gov>, erald reen <gerald.green@knoxmpc.org>, harles wanson <cswanson@knoxvilletn.gov>, rista uccaro <uccaro@knoxvilletn.gov>, eter hrens <pahrens@knoxvilletn.gov> ommissioners, s you prepare for your meeting on hursday, wanted to provide some context and perspective on the request you have received from some neighborhood groups to recommend a complete ban on short-term rentals for homeowners in -1 and -1 districts. he administration has serious concerns about making that kind of blanket prohibition, which would affect the majority of neighborhoods in all sectors of the city. t would effectively leave short-term rentals as a widespread illegal use in most areas of noxville, creating both enforcement and public safety challenges. have attached a map prepared by staff showing all of the -1 and -1 districts in noxville. s you can see, they cover the majority of our residential areas. am also attaching the map that rista uccaro presented in her slide show on uesday, showing areas of irbnb activity in the past year. his activity is already happening citywide, including in many -1 and -1 areas. f you zoom in on the zoning map, you can see that in fact most of our neighborhoods have several different zoning designations, often varying from one street to the next. prohibition on a use of property by homeowners in -1 and - 1 would leave many people who may wish to operate a short-term rental in their own home unable to do so, while their neighbors across the street or a few blocks over would be able to. o give one example, have attached another map showing the location of a property in equoyah ills (outlined in red) that the ity sent a notice of violation to after an anonymous complaint that the owner was operating a short-term rental there. s you can see from this map, that property is literally across the street from a large apartment complex that is zoned -2. t would be hard to make a case that the presence of a guest in the home with the is imposing some burden on that block. ou can find these situations in most of our neighborhoods. e have, for another example, heard from a homeowner on eane ill rive who wants to operate a short-term rental in a mother-in-law apartment in his house that has been vacated by his mother-in-law. is -1 property is just two doors down from an -2 district. gain, it is hard to imagine what negative impact a guest in his 4,500-square-foot house is having. hese are the real-world scenarios that we are attempting to give some regulatory coherence to with our ordinance. hat s more, these uses are happening literally every day in nearly every neighborhood in noxville, with an estimated 8,000 guest stays a year, and we have heard only a handful of complaints most of which have alleged only zoning violations, not any kind of disruptive behavior. e understand that there are fears about the impact of short-term rentals, especially from people who are not familiar with the model and marketplace. ut those fears have not been in any way borne out by several years of actual experience, with thousands of people staying in hundreds of homes across noxville. oreover, the experience of other cities tells us clearly that the more restrictive a short-term rental ordinance is, the harder it is to enforce and the larger the underground economy it fuels. he nature of the technological platforms, their ease of use, and the growing demand for this form of lodging all ensure that it will continue to happen in noxville, whether or not we provide a framework for it. ith our proposed ordinance, we have deliberately and carefully worked to balance the many competing interests we have heard from on the issue,

6 protecting the integrity of our neighborhoods and our housing supply while also respecting the rights of property owners and recognizing the reality of the world in ike most compromises, the proposed ordinance does not make anyone completely happy, but it does give us a pragmatic and enforceable framework. t is also a framework that will provide a great deal more information and protection to our neighborhoods than currently exists. y requiring permits, we will create a publicly available list of all properties, including contact information for owners and designated agents. hat means people will no longer have to guess or wonder if their neighbors are operating an, as is currently the case and will remain the case if they are broadly banned. y not allowing ype 2 (non-owner-occupied) s in residential areas, we will protect against the kinds of problems we have seen in cities where that is a prevailing model, which can include both the party house phenomenon and a loss of properties from the long-term rental market. he staff report you have makes clear there is not a legal basis in the zoning code for discriminating between or against residential districts on this issue. he desire from some groups to maintain a total ban on s in most areas of the city is therefore really a matter of local policy and politics, not land use. he administration does not believe it is a wise course, from a policy standpoint nor a practical one, from an enforcement standpoint. ut in any case, it is the kind of political question that is best addressed by our local legislative body. e would be happy to answer any questions you may have. s you can tell, this is a complex subject that we have spent many months studying and wrestling with, and there are strong feelings on all sides of it. hank you for your time and dedication. Jesse Jesse Fox ayshark r. irector of ommunications and overnment elations ity of noxville ffice: ell: mail: jmayshark@knoxvilletn.gov -- his message was directed to commission@knoxmpc.org 3 attachments equoyah ills zoning map.png 1223

7

8

9 -1-1 Z F X F Z F J F F Z J 140 X Z J J F F F Z F F Z F Z F F F F F F F 40 FF X F F X FF F F X F F F 275 X F F F J J F J X J - F F F J Z FF 75 F riginal ap rint ate: ay 9, 2017 iles in = 0.5 miles 0 X 4 ow ensity esidential (-1, -1) Zoning istricts