CITY OF CARLTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, APRIL 15, 2019, 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL, 191 EAST MAIN STREET, CARLTON

Transcription

1 Pge 1 of 120 CITY OF CARLTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, APRIL 15, 2019, 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL, 191 EAST MAIN STREET, CARLTON The Mission of the City of Crlton is to sustin nd enhnce the vibility of the community by providing essentil services with professionlism nd integrity. 1. Cll to Order Roll Cll Pges 1) Chnges to the Agend Approvl of Minutes Mrch 18, City Stff Reports 1) Vction Rentl Development Strtegy ) South Tower Design Review Updte Citizen Comments 5. Public Hering: ) City File #CPA/ZC ; Comprehensive Pln Amendment/Zone Chnge from Ag Holding to Residentil R-3 by the Community Home Builders, locted t Est Roosevelt Street Qusi-Judicil 6. Commissioner Comments Adjournment

2

3 Pge 2 of 120 Plnning Commission Regulr Session Minutes Mrch 18, 2019, 6:00 PM Crlton City Hll, Council Chmbers (191 E. Min Street) 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER & ROLL CALL Bob Grhm clled the meeting to order t 6:03 PM. Members Present: Bob Grhm Dust Biley Jessic Smpson Kthleen Moss Gwen Jernstedt Members Absent: Stff Present: Kevin Herwick nd Adm Brennn Crole Connell, City Plnner Aimee Amerson, Plnning Clerk Others: Dvid Bissett, Blke Zumwlt, Trcy Zumwlt, Mike Henry, Andrew Btes, Dve Benson nd Will Frley 2. MINUTES APPROVAL- Jnury 14, :03 PM MOTION: Biley/Moss: to pprove the Plnning Commission minutes from Jnury 14, 2019 s submitted. Motion crried (5 Yes/0 No/2 Absent/0 Abstin). 3.CITY STAFF REPORTS- Plnning nd Development Report 6:04 PM City Plnner Crole Connell does not hve ny updtes for the Commissioners. 4. CITIZEN COMMENTS 6:04 PM None given. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 1) City File #CUP/SDR/VAR :04 PM 437 S 3 rd Street- Fmily Life Church Grhm opens the hering t 6:05 pm. City Plnner Crole Connell reds hering disclosure sttement to udience nd Commissioners. Grhm clls for ny conflicts of interest to Commissioners nd udience. None given. Connell reds the hering nd disclosure sttement to commissioners nd udience. Connell begins stff report strting with bckground nd purpose of multiple pplictions to Commissioners. She continues with describing ll the issues nd concerns with the project including utilities nd street improvements. Connell explins the conditions of pprovl tht Commissioners cn dd or chnge. She describes how the project is complint with city stndrds. She continues with the criteri tht does not meet stndrds: the stormwter, fire flow nd not enough detils nd in-depth trffic ssessment is needed per City Engineer request. Connell points out the conditions of pprovl on the stff report on pge 14 of the stff report which llows the stff to resolve the few engineering issues tht still require more reserch. Applicnt rebuttl- Dvid Bissett of Portlnd Oregon- Architect for the project, begins explining the project with n overview. Bissett sttes he grees with Connell by stting the Commission should llow stff finlize the engineering nd reserch nd pprove the process for the best interests of both prties. Bissett explins tht the process of the church project from construction spect including the lndscpe pln, building plns including the building mterils.

4 Pge 3 of 120 Commissioners sk Bissett clrifiction questions regrding the project. Dve Benson, Pstor of Fmily Life Church of Newberg Oregon- Explins the future uses of the building nd property being open to the community using the prking spce during the week. He wnts to be good neighbor to the community nd the explins the uses nd ctivities in the building will support the community. Mike Henry of Newberg Oregon- Engineer for the project, describes the property nd the stormwter pln. He sttes the pplicnt hs recently elected to crete detention unit below the prking re nd will bring this option before the City Engineer for review. He lso mentions the results of the fire flow testing on Mrch 14 th, which re bove stndrds. Will Frley of Portlnd Oregon Trffic nlysis engineer, describes how he got the numbers nd trffic collection numbers. He will be doing trffic nlysis of Sundy trffic per City Engineer request. Commissioners discuss options regrding options for pervious surfces in lieu of sphlt or stormwter detention holding res. Grhm closes the Public Hering t 7:09 PM. Commissioners discuss options nd review conditions of pprovl. MOTION: Biley/Jernstedt: to pprove Conditionl Use Permit, Site Design Review nd Minor Vrince , Fmily Life Church (CUP/SDR/VAR ) s recommended by stff bsed upon the findings in the City Stff Report nd in complince with the conditions of pprovl s modified. Motion crried (5 Yes/0 No/2 Absent/0 Abstin). 6. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 7: 14 PM None given. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting djourned t 7:15 PM. ATTEST: Aimee Amerson, Plnning Clerk Kevin Herwick, Plnning Commission Chir

5 Pge 4 of 120 Vction Rentl Development Strtegy Executive Summry The Crlton City Council met to discuss gols for FY2019 this pst Februry. One of the topics of discussion ws the trend in vction rentl growth in the community nd the potentil need for the City to ct to crete dditionl regultion s wy of protecting the stbility of vluble neighborhoods in Crlton. As such, stff hs summrized nd updted the most recent dt for the Plnning Commission to consider. In summry, stff is recommending tht the Plnning Commission continue its monitor nd see pproch s the dt shows tht the percentge of vction rentls hs DECLINED over the pst yer. Should the Plnning Commission desire to work-up strtegies in preemptive mnner before the vction rentl problem mterilizes, s it hs done in other communities, stff stnds redy to begin work. Bckground In 2018, the City Council expressed interest in reserching the number nd sttus of Vction Rentl Dwellings in the City of Crlton. The Council sked the Plnning Commission to review the inventory of Vction Dwellings nd mke recommendtion if they felt the sitution required ttention. In order for the Plnning Commission to review sttistics, City stff reserched the topic nd submitted dt in the July 16, 2018 Plnning Commission meeting pcket. At tht time, there were 24 ctive, permitted nd vlid Vction Rentl Dwellings operting in the City. This represented 2.65% of the totl homes in the City of Crlton being used s Vction Rentl Dwellings. After reviewing the informtion, the Plnning Commission greed tht t tht time there ws not need to put ny further regultions in plce. They chose to continue to monitor the sttus of the vction rentl mrket nd mke ny regultion chnges if the percentge of units incresed, or if n re becme too concentrted with short term rentls or ny other concerns were identified regrding short term rentls. City stff were sked to submit updtes to the Plnning Commission with ny vction rentl chnges. Monitor & See To monitor the sttus of Vction Dwellings, city stff processes nd documents the ppliction nd pprovl of ech rentl unit. This llows stff to know which properties hve completed the process, nd which ones re still in the process. Once the home is pproved for short term rentl, the ddress is dded to mster list. The mster list ids stff in two wys. It illustrtes ll the homes in the City tht re pproved nd keeps trck of ll ctive vction rentls operting in the City. The mster list lso ids stff in keeping trck of qurterly trnsient pyments. Stff input the dte the trnsient tx ws pid into the list. If tx is not pid, then stff

6 Pge 5 of 120 issue letters if the property owner is delinquent in pying their tx or renewing their business license. To find homes dvertising or renting without the proper permitting nd licensing, stff checks vction home rentl websites minimum of twice month. A few of the websites tht re checked re: Crigslist, VRBO, AirBnB nd HomeAwy. When property is found to be renting without the proper permitting, letter is sent to the property owner. The letter explins the vction rentl process nd includes n ppliction for them to submit to become complint. If the owner cnnot be reched vi letter or there is no response, other ctions to contct will be tken such s phone clls, door hngers or messges vi the rentl site. Online services re lso vilble tht cn id City stff in finding non-complint vction rentl dwellings nd ssist with txes nd trcking. These services cn lso ssist in the ppliction nd permitting process. Thus, sving stff time nd resources. Host Complince is n exmple of one of these businesses. To operte Vction Rentl in Crlton, n ppliction must be submitted by the property owner to City Hll. The fee for this ppliction is $ The ppliction is reviewed for completion by City stff, nd if deemed complete, then completion notice is sent to the pplicnt. Also, t tht time, notice is sent to the neighbors within 100 feet of the property. The notice explins wht the pplicnt s intent is, nd tht they hve 21 dys to respond with ny concerns or complints to the City Plnner or City Hll stff. If there re no complints received from the neighbors within the notice period, then City Stff completes the process by creting the Notice of Decision nd miling to the property owner. Once the pplicnt is pproved, the permit is vlid s long s they own the property. The permit is not trnsferble upon sle of the property. Also, upon pprovl, current business license is needed nnully s well s qurterly trnsient tx pid to the City is needed to operte. If in the noticing period neighbor hs vlid concern or issue with the neighboring property becoming vction rentl dwelling, the vction rentl pplicnt will need to pply for Conditionl Use permit. This ppliction then goes before the Plnning Commission for decision. The Plnning Commission hers the pplicnt nd complinnt s resons nd concerns nd then mkes decision tht they feel will compromise both prties. This decision is detiled in the Notice of Decision for the rentl property nd the ppliction process is completed. Impcts The rise in the Vction rentl home mrket in Oregon hs creted demnd to rent nd demnd to own. Cities cross Oregon re hving to find wys to regulte the inventory for vriety of resons. Neighbors re not comfortble with high number of short-term rentls impcting the residentil nture in their neighborhood. The mount of vilble housing for sle or rent in some cities is lso decresing, creting housing shortge nd pressing cities to regulte the short-term rentl inventory. Cities re pursuing different methods for regulting the vction rentl mrket. For exmple, short term rentls in Bend, OR, hve minimum spcing distnce of 250 feet. Mnznit, OR, limits the totl number of vction rentls to 17.5% of the totl homes in ech zone. Other cities,

7 Pge 6 of 120 such s Seside, OR, requires two off street prking spces plus one for ech dditionl room, choosing to use stricter prking requirements s mens of regultion. Closer to Crlton, the City of McMinnville mended their vction rentl criteri in April McMinnville requires minimum distnce of 200 feet between rentl units. This pplies to ny new short-term rentls pproved fter the Ordinnce ws encted. Vction Rentls pproved before the Ordinnce ws mended re not ffected, but lso do not hve nontrnsferble permit upon sle of the property or if the owner does not renew the short-term rentl permit nnully, which cuses it to become void. The owner would then hve to repply nd meet current Ordinnce stndrds. Dt Attched is n updted summry of housing units in the City of Crlton. Overll, the percentge of vction rentls hs declined since lst mesure in Also ttched for the informtion of the Plnning Commission is the City of McMinnville April 10, 2018 Stff Report nd the University of Oregon, Deprtment of Plnning report titled Assessing nd Responding to Short-Term Rentls in Oregon.

8 Pge 7 of 120 Plnning Detils for April 2019 Number of Vction Rentl Applictions since 01/01/2019 = 1 (419 S Prk St) Totl number of ctive Vction Rentl Dwellings s of 01/01/2019 = 21 Totl number of homes in Crlton in 2018= 905 % of totl homes tht re VRD s in July 2018 = 2.65% o Totl # of homes in Crlton currently = 925 o % of totl homes tht re VRD s currently = 2.27% B nd B s: 2 VACATION RENTALS BY YEAR Vction Rentls

9 Pge 8 of 120 City of McMinnville Plnning Deprtment 231 NE Fifth Street McMinnville, OR (503) ww\ry. mcm in nvilleoreqon.qov STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT April 10,2018 Myor nd City Councilors Chuck Drnell, Associte Plnner Ordinnce No G 1-18: Zoning Text Amendment to mend multiple chpters of the McMinnville City Code relted to Vction Home Rentls/Short Term Rentls GouncilGol: Promote Sustinble Growth nd Development Report in Brief: This ction is the second reding nd considertion of Ordinnce No. 5047, n ordinnce mending Chpter (Definitions), Chpter 17.12(R-1 Single-Fmily Residentil Zone), Chpter (R-2 Single-Fmily Residentil Zone), Chpter B (R-3 Two-Fmily Residentil Zone), Chpter (R-4 Multiple-Fmily Residentil Zone), Chpter (O-R Office/Residentil Zone), Chpter (C-2 Trvel Commercil Zone), Chpter (Off-street Prking nd Loding), nd Chpter (Applictions nd Review Process) of the McMinnville City Code. The proposed zoning text mendments re relted to the reclssifiction of vction home rentls (VHRs) s short term rentls. The mendments will introduce spcing stndrds for short term rentls locted in residentil zones nd will updte the stndrds tht pply to short term rentls in residentil zones for better clrifiction on the required design nd opertion of these types of uses. The mendments will lso ddress the clssifiction of short term rentls in the commercil zones to better define these types of uses s short term rentls insted of the current clssifiction s bording houses or lodging houses. Bckqround: City stff were sked by number of residents in McMinnville neighborhood to review the Zoning Ordinnce regultions for vction home rentls. After the pprovl of severl vction home rentls in their neighborhood these residents felt tht the mount of vction home rentls ws strting to threten the residentil nture of their neighborhood. City stff brought the concerns to the Plnning Commission nd the Plnning Commission greed to evlute the current code provisions to see if they were pproprite for McMinnville. The Plnning Commission first discussed VHRs t September 21, 2017 work session, nd then provided n opportunity for public comment on the topic of VHRs t the October 19,2017 work session. Following the public comment portion of the October work session, the Plnning Commission hd brief Attchments: Mps of 200 Foot Spcing Stndrd Appliction Ordinnce No including Exhibit A: G 1-1 I Decision Document Exhibit B- J: Amendmentsto Chpters 17.06, 17.12, 17.15, 17.18, 17.21, 17.24, 17.30, 17.60, nd 17.72

10 Pge 9 of 120 G Vction Home/Short Term Rentls - Zoning Text Amendments Pge 2 discussion nd directed stff to reserch wht other communities were doing reltive to regultions for vction homes rentls nd to drft some recommendtions for Plnning Commission to consider tht would regulte the number nd spcing of vction home rentls in neighborhood. Stff selected brod rnge of cities outside of the Metro re, including cities from different regions such s Centrl Oregon nd the Oregon cost. Also, stff included cities tht hve higher levels of tourism s is the cse in McMinnville. A summry tble of the comprtive stndrds of eleven other Oregon jurisdictions hs been provided below nd is lso ttched to the stff report for your reference (Attchment 1). Mrln$r$lE Ashlrd gend t) poe By Hoqd nfus lceph BUse t&rcln citf Mnlt t noc(ilsy sesld slstee VHR Speing R quirment No spsclng requirement Nospdng r qulrement No spclng Gqulrement No spcing cquirement Nospclng requiclmt No spscing requlrsent No specing RSriremnt No spdng equlrerent N sp ing requlrement Nosp lng requiement No spcing requirement FrkirE one off. str+t 5p3ce fu. e h g@st r@m ore off- 5t.et ptking spce per VHR one off- :t(eet 5pce for ech guest room one offstreet prkin One off-streel sp@ for prkng spf, ech two per VHR guest rooms Tee offit.st prkin! ip(es per vhr Two offstreet po,ling 5p(es + one for ech ddtionl bedroom orhsslte Regultio6 frt of colleto. or fisroence StroctuEl RegultiG m.jst be t lesi 20 yse Other Regultis 4-Yeir Amortized Period 3 Yer review prior to pemnent pprovil,-rs mvisv 9{iof perunert requird yds must be Stff lso completed more comprehensive reserch on few select cities from the tble bove tht hve different methods for regulting VHRs in their jurisdictions. Stff presented this informtion to the Plnning Commission t their December 21, 2017 work session. Bsed on tht informtion nd subsequent discussion, the Plnning Commission directed stff to explore spcing stndrds for VHRs nd enforcement procedures for short term rentls tht re found to be operting without City pprovl s VHR. Stff explored options for spcing stndrds nd enforcement procedures, s well s lterntive definitions nd opertionl requirements, for vction home rentls, nd brought dditionl informtion bck to the Plnning Commission for discussion t the Jnury 18,2018 regulr meeting. After discussion nd delibertion, the Plnning Commission provided guidnce to stff nd directed stff to bring proposed mendments relted to the regultion of vction home rentls bck to the Plnning Commission for considertion during forml public hering. The Plnning Commission held public hering on the proposed zoning text mendments t their Februry 15,2018 meeting. Public testimony ws received during the public hering, some in support of the proposed mendments nd one in opposition. After closing the public hering nd completing delibertion, the Plnning Commission voted unnimously to recommend pprovl of the zoning text mendments to the City Council. Attchments: Mps of 200 Foot Spcing Stndrd Appliction Ordinnce No including Exhibit A: G 1-18 Decision Document Exhibit B-J: Amendmenfs fo Chpters 17.06,17.12,17.15, 17.18,17.21,17.24, 17.30,17.60, nd 17.72

11 Pge 10 of 120 G Vction Home/Short Term Rentls - Zoning Text Amendments Pge 3 The City Council held first hering of the ordinnce nd the proposed zoning text mendments on Mrch 13, During delibertion, the Council directed stff to explore few dditionl minor mendments, nd to bring the dditionl mendments bck to City Council t future meeting for considertion during second reding of the ordinnce. A copy of the drft zoning text mendments, s recommended by the Plnning Commission nd with the dditionl mendments discussed by the City Council, re included in the ordinnce tht is ttched to this stff report. Discussion: The min components of the proposed mendments to the vction home rentl regultions were described in detil in the previous stff report presented to City Council on Mrch 13,2018. Below re descriptions of the dditionl mendments tht were discussed nd suggested by the City Council during the first reding of the ordinnce. Timefrme for Short Term Rentls: The existing definitions of Vction Home Rentl nd Bed nd Brekfst describe the length of time tht the dwelling units or sleeping rooms cn be rented nd still be considered the short term rentl uses of vction home rentl or bed nd brekfst. The Plnning Commission hd reviewed nd discussed these timefrmes during their series of work session discussions, but ultimtely hd decided not to propose to chnge the existing definitions. However, during the course of the reserch completed by stff on the regultions in other cities in Oregon, more typicl timefrme for short term rentl uses ws 30 dys. Upon further reserch, stff hs determined tht the 30 dy timefrme is likely bsed in Oregon Revised Sttutes (ORS) lnguge (ORS (49)) tht defines "trnsient occupncy", in prt, s the occupncy of trnsient lodging for period tht does not exceed 30 dys. However, "trnsient occupncy" lso requires rent to not be collected more thn 6 dys in dvnce nd requires tht the owner to provide dily or every two-dy mid nd linen service, which often is not provided in common short term rentl situtions. The ORS do lso define "vction occupncy" (ORS (50)), s occupncy in dwelling unit in which the occupnt rents for vction purposes only, not s principl residence. The ORS llows this type of occupncy for up to 45 dys. Both "trnsient occupncy" nd "vction occupncy" re excluded from the requirements of ORS Chpter 90 (Residentil Lndlord nd Tennt), which re the lws tht regulte the reltionship nd rights between lndlords nd tennts. Bsed on City Council discussion on the timefrmes for short term rentls nd request tht the timefrmes be more consistent with other communities nd typicl residentil rentl greements, stff is suggesting tht the definitions of "Short Term Rentl" nd "Short Term Rentl, Resident Occupied" be mended to llow the occuption of the dwelling unit or sleeping room, respectively, for period of "no more thn 30 (thirty) consecutive dys". This would llow for rentls tht fll under the ORS definitions of "trnsient occupncy" nd "vction occupncy", which re exempt from the lws nd regultions on the reltionship between lndlords nd tennts. Also, the 30 dy timefrme is more consistent with typicl rentl greements, where rentl periods of more thn 30 dys would either fll into longer term leses or month-to-month rentl greements. lf the 30 dy timefrme is dopted, ny rentl for longer period of time would be clssified by the City s stndrd rentl, subject to ny type of rentl greement between the prties involved. The City does not regulte long-term rentls, so those types of sitution would not be subject to ny locl regultions or requirements. Attchments: Mps of 200 Foot Spcing Stndrd Appliction Ordinnce No including Exhibit A: G 1-18 Decision Document Exhibit B - J: Amendments to Chpters 17.06, 17.12, 17.15, 17.18, 17.21, 17.24, 17.30, 17.60, nd 17.72

12 Pge 11 of 120 G Vction Home/Short Term Rentls - Zoninq Text Amendments Pge 4 Use of Duplexes for Short Term Rentls: The current stndrds for vction home rentls nd bed nd brekfst estblishments include stndrd tht is not cler in its intention. The lnguge is provided in Section (N)(1) nd Section (OX1) s follows: "Tht the structure be designed for nd occupied s single fmily residence. The structure shll retin the chrcteristics of single fmily residence". While the bove lnguge does not specificlly limit the opertion of vction home rentls nd bed nd brekfst estblishments to single fmily dwelling units, the historicl interprettion of the Plnning Deprtment hs been to only llow them in single fmily dwelling units bsed on the fct tht the lnguge uses the phrse "retin the chrcteristics of single fmily residence". The Plnning Commission hd recommended tht the use of short term rentls, s they will be defined if the proposed mendments re pproved, be llowed in single fmily dwellings, common-wll single fmily dwellings, two-fmily dwellings (duplexes), nd ccessory dwelling units (ADUs). During the City Council delibertion, there ws discussion on whether short term rentls should be llowed in two-fmily dwelling (duplex) units. There ws discussion on the fct tht duplex uses re often used s rentl housing nd cn be more ffordble housing option in the city when compred to rentl of full single fmily dwelling. The Plnning Commission hd discussed the preservtion of more nturlly occurring ffordble housing during their work session discussions, nd hd decided not to llow short term rentls in multiple-fmily dwelling units forthe sme reson of preserving more ffordble housing opportunities. The use of duplexes for short term rentls ws originlly included s wy to llow more options for short term rentl uses, given the new spcing stndrd would limit opportunities for short term rentls overll. However, stff does not believe tht the Plnning Commission would seriously object to n mendment to not llow short term rentls in duplex units, in n effort to preserve more nturlly occurring ffordble housing options. Therefore, stff is recommending tht n mendment be mde to the previously proposed mendments to not llow short term rentls in two-fmily (duplex) dwelling units. Specificlly, the following mendments to the existing stndrd re being recommended: Tht the structure be designed for nd occupied s single-fmily residence. Short term rentls shll be llowed in sinqle fmilv dwellinqs. common-wll sinqle fmilv dwellinqs. nd ccessorv dwellinq units (ADUs). The structure shll retin the chrcteristics of single-fmily residence. Licensing nd Renewl Requirements: The Plnning Commission hd recommended to retin the processes for reviewing nd licensing short term rentls nd resident occupied short term rentls in the residentil zones (R-1, R-2, R-3, nd R-4) nd the Office-Residentil zone (O-R). The permitted uses in these zones will be subject to ll of the stndrds in Seclion (N)(1) nd Section (0)(1), which require lnd use ppliction to be reviewed by the Plnning Director with notifiction nd lso include lnguge on opertionl stndrds tht must be followed. The Plnning Commission is recommending to not subject short term rentls in the commercil zones (C-2 nd C-3) to the stndrds in Section (NX1) nd Section (OX1), which is consistent with the previous prctice of not requiring review nd licensing for these commercil type uses in the commercil zones. Attchments: Mps of 200 Foot Spcing Stndrd Appliction Ordinnce No including Exhibit A: G 1-1 I Decision Document Exhibit B - J: Amendments to Chpters 17.06, 17.12, 17.15, 17.18, 17.21, 17.24, 17.30, 17.60, nd 17.72

13 Pge 12 of 120 G Vction Home/Short Term Rentls - Zoning Text Amendments Pge 5 The existing lnguge lso requires tht licenses for short term rentls nd resident occupied short term rentls be renewed ech yer. The proposed mendments would updte this lnguge to confirm tht the licenses re renewed nnully, nd tht filure to renew the short term rentl permit will result in the permit becoming void. This will result in the subject property hving to re-pply for their short term rentl license, which would subject the property to the spcing stndrd. For the existing short term rentls tht don't meet the spcing stndrd but re llowed to continue s nonconforming uses, filure to renew would effectively eliminte the nonconforming use. As licenses re not renewed, it would lso provide n opportunity for other properties in the surrounding re to become eligible for short term rentl license. The City will provide notice of the nnul requirement to renew the short term rentl license, but it will ultimtely be the responsibility of the property owner to ensure tht their license is renewed nnully. The City Council lso discussed during the first reding whether the licensing process should be linked to property ownership. Specificlly, the Council hd sked stff to investigte whether the permits issued to operte short term rentls could terminte or become void upon chnge in ownership. The resoning for the Council interest in this ws to provide nother mens of removing short term rentls tht re nonconforming in terms of the newly required spcing stndrd of 200 feet between short term rentl USES. During the course of the reserch tht ws conducted during the Plnning Commission work sessions, stff hd found tht one other community, Mnznit, hd linked their short term rentl licenses/permits to property ownership. Specificlly, Mnznit's regultions (in Section 3 (c)of Ordinnce 10-03) stte the following: "The short term rentl license is issued to the owner nd does not trnsfer with the sle or conveynce of the property. All short term rentl license holders must report to the City ny chnge of ownership of their short term rentl, in whtever form, before the conveynce deed is recorded. The trnsfer of the property from (1) nturl person(s) to Trust serving the sme nturl person(s) or to fmily member pursunt to Trust or (2) the trnsfer of ownership pursunt to will or bequest upon the deth of the owner is not deemed not to be trnsfer of ownership for purposes of this Ordinnce." lf the City Council is interested in hving the permits for short term rentls be ssocited with property ownership, stff is suggesting tht the City follow similr process s the process in Mnznit, in tht ll permits will be issued to the current owner nd tht the permits become void upon chnge in ownership. Stff is lso suggesting tht the trnsfer of property to trust or through will not be considered chnge of ownership, s these generlly represent involuntry chnges in ownership. Chnges in ownership could be required to be reported to the City, but if they re not, the City would become wre of the chnge in ownership t either the time of the required nnul permit renewl or when the new owner ttempts to register s trnsient lodging provider in order to py the required trnsient lodging tx. Stff believes tht hving this process pply to ll holders of short term rentl permits would be fir nd more stright-foruvrd in dministering, nd would still meet the intent of the City Council in hving nonconforming short term rentls slowly phse out of the system. lt would subject more properties to the review nd permitting process, but it would lso ensure tht the new owners would be wre of nd following ll of the pplicble requirements of the City's short term rentl progrm. Specificlly, stff is suggesting the following lnguge be dded s stndrd to Section (N) nd Section (O): Attchments: Mps of 200 Foot Spcing Stndrd Appliction Ordinnce No including Exhibit A: G 1-18 Decision Document Exhibit B - J: Amendments to Chpters 17.06, 17.12, 17.15, 17.18, 17.21, 17.24, 17.30, 17.60, nd 17.72

14 Pge 13 of 120 G Vction Home/Short Term Rentls - Zoninq Text Amendments Pge 6 B. Permits shll be issued to the current property owner t the time of ppliction. Permits do not trnsfer with the sle or conveynce of the property. Upon ny chnge in ownership, the short term rentl permit for the subject property will become void. The use of the subject property s short term rentl by the new owner will be subject to the ppliction nd review procedures in Section The following situtions re not deemed to be chnge in ownership for the purposes of this section:. Trnsfer of property from nturl person(s) to Trust serving the sme nturl person(s) or to fmily member pursunt to Trust; or b. Trnsfer of ownership pursunt to will or bequest upon the deth of the owner. Fiscl lmpct: None. Alterntive Co of Action 1. ADOPT Ordinnce No. 5047, pproving G 1-18 nd dopting the Decision, Findings of Fct nd Conclqsionry Findings. 2. ELECT TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING dte specific to future City Council meeting 3. DO NOT ADOPT Ordinnce No Recommendtion/Suqqested Motion : Stff recommends tht the Council dopt Ordinnce No which would pprove the zoning text mendment s recommended by the Plnning Commission.,.THAT BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL, AND THE MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 5047" CD:sjs Aftchments: Mps of 200 Foot Spcing Stndrd Appliction Ordinnce No including Exhibit A: G 1-18 Decision Document Exhibit B- J: Amendmenfs fo Chpters 17.06, 17.12, 17.15, 17.18, 17.21, 17.24, 17.30, 17.60, nd 17.72

15 Pge 14 of 120 Assessing nd Responding to Short- Term Rentls in Oregon ENABLING THE BENEFITS OF THE SHARING ECONOMY BY: SADIE DINATALF COMMITTEE CHAIRS: REBECCA LEWIS, Ph.D. nd ROBERT PARKER, AICP UNIVFR9ITY OF ORFCON I DEPARTMENT Oi.PIAI'JNING, PUBI.IC POLICY, AND MANAGEMINT

16 Pge 15 of 120 This pge is intentionlly blnk. SADIE DINATALE

17 Pge 16 of 120 Tble of Contents Questions of More lnformtion? Executive Summry 6 lntroduction 6 Key Findings 6 Conclusion Recommendtions Chpter z: Key Findings...15 Wht is the prevlence nd chrcteristics of short-term rentls in Oregon? Wht is the revenue potentil of short-term rentls in Oregon? To wht extent do short-term rentls constrin the supply of housing? 22 Wht re the existing perceptions round short-term rentls in Oregon? 24 How re short-term rentls currently being regulted in Oregon? 26 Chpter 3: Conclusions z8 How should policy mkers nd plnners in Oregon respond to short-term rentls?... z8 How should plnners nd policy mkers enforce short-term rentls? 35 The Need for Continuous Ev ution Future Reserch...36 Chpter 4: Policy Recommendtions j8 Regultory Recommendtions...38 Legisltive Approches: A Typology for Smller Jurisdictions Appendix A: Literture Review...44 lmpct of Short-Term Rentls 44 4o SADIE DINATALE 2

18 Pge 17 of 120 Legisltive Approches Appendix C: lndustry Summry for Cities with Airbnbs... Appendix D: Sensitivity Test, AirDnA vs Airbnb Dt.. Bibliogrphy z 6+ SADIE DINATALE 3

19 Pge 18 of 120 Abstrct Assessing nd Responding to Short-Term Rentls in Oregon: Enbling the Benefits of the Shring Economy Locl, regionl, nd stte governments cross the country struggle to mnge the impcts of shortterm rentls (STRs), nd the shring economy more generlly. Often referred to s vction rentls, STRs re not new to the housing mrket yet, in the lst decde, technology hs gretly influenced their prevlence. Privte, web-bsed businesses such s Airbnb, VRBO, HomeToGo, LUXbnb, CouchSurfing, HomeAwy, FlipKey, nd VCs, hve given people ccess to user-friendly, globl mrketplce for home shring. As the shring economy prolifertes, STRs hve often flown under the r:dr of government txtion nd regultion. Accordingly, mny perceived negtive impcts of STRs exist including the loss of tx revenue nd impcts on trditionl lodging businesses, neighborhoods, housing ffordbility, nd housing vilbility. Still, the widespred use of these pltforms show evidence of mny Ioclized benefits. Some of these benefits include llowing property owners to ern income by renting out their unused spce, offering tourists n experience tht is more unique, nd mong others, driving visitors to plces not conventionlly ccessible for tourists (spurring economic ctivity in new res nd communities). Becuse this economic ctivity, s it used tody, is reltively new phenomenon, existing reserch is sprse nd tends to focus on lrge/meg cities. Thus, this reserch fills n importnt gp by focusing on smll, tourism-oriented towns in Oregon. We ddress the following reserch questions in this pper: t) Wht is the prevlence nd chrcteristics of short-term rentls in Oregon? z) Wht is the revenue potentil of short-term rentls in Oregon? 3) Wht re the existing perceptions round short-term rentls in Oregon? 4) How re short-term rentls currently being regulted in Oregon? 5) To wht extent do short-term rentls compete with long-term rentls? To exmine the prevlence of short-term rentls, we rely on city-level dt from AirBnB nd property-specific dt from AirDnA, for cities under loo,ooo in popultion. We lso use Americn Community Survey dt to exmine the shre of totl housing units nd vcnt units with short-term rentls. To understnd the positive nd negtive impcts nd the regultory environment, we rely on survey dministered to city mngers nd city plnners. This work provides timely nd vluble informtion to smll nd mid-sized cities regrding recent trend ffecting housing. Plnners nd city stff need to understnd how short-term rentls re ffecting their communities nd respond with pproprite regultory controls. SADIE DINATAL-I: 4

20 Pge 19 of 120 Acknowledgments A sincere thnk you to Rebecc Lewis, PhD nd Robert Prker, AICP for providing guidnce nd direction on this project s committee chirs. ln ddition, thnk you to Beth Goodmn for your generous consulttion. Moreover, I would like to thnk the University of Oregon's Deprtment of Plnning, Public Policy nd Mngement for providing finncil support. Thnk you to the mny individuls who provided input with survey responses nd thnk you to AirBnB who hs supported this reserch by proving vluble dt. Questions of More lnformtion? Oregon communities interested in short-term rentl dt for their community, county, or region (or who hve questions bout this report) cn contct Sdie DiNtle t Sdje.dintle@gmil. SADIE DINATALE t

21 Pge 20 of 120 Executive Summry This summry briefly outlines the purpose of this project, delinetes key findings, nd concludes with wys to respond to the impcts of short-term rentls (STRs) in smller cities. lntroduction Short-term rentls (STRs) re often defined s housing units tht re rented or lesed for less thn 3o dys, lthough they not officilly defined by stte or federl uthorities. Prt of the shring economy, STRs re representtive of phenomenon in which people re incresingly choosing to shre ccess to goods nd services vi lterl or hierrchicl exchnge (which often includes monetry exchnge s well). This trend hs been understood to offer both benefits nd costs to communities cross the country. Accordingly, this project uses Airbnb property dt for the stte of Oregon to understnd how this shring economy ctivity influences cities with popultions fewer thn roo,ooo. Cse studies re used to delve deeper into this nlysis. A survey sent to Oregon city mngers nd plnning directors complements this reserch by guging the existing policy frmeworks for STRs in Oregon. This survey provides insight into how cities view STRs nd ssists in the development of regultory best prctices for responding to STR impcts. Key Findings Wht is the prevlenee nd ehrcteristies of short-term rentls in Oregon cities with <.!oo,ooo people? o Airbnbs ccount for more thn 5% of totl housing in only r6 cities, indicting tht short-term rentls re not prevlent in most jurisdictions. Still, we must qulify this sttement with the fct tht not ll short-term rentls re equivlent to one dwelling unit.. Airbnbs re most prevlent in Centrl Oregon nd the North Cost. r From zo14to zot6, the number of new STRs creted incresed by roughly r8o%. r Short-term rentls tend to be in lower income neighborhoods more commonly. o Most Airbnb hosts operte single STR. Of pproximtely 4,4oo hosts, zz% operte more thn one STR.. Approximtely 7o% of Airbnb hosts rent out their entire home/prtment (either primry or second home) nd nother jo% of STRs re listed or rented out s privte room (the remining t% is listed s shred room). r Most STRs re trditionl property types. Approximtely 6o% of ll listed properties re houses nd nother t3%re prtments. Wht is the revenue potentil of short-term rentls in Oregon cities with <1oo,ooo people? r Short-term rentls generte substntil revenue in Oregon. Hosts hve erned n ggregted $82 million in the lst yer. r Nine of the t5 cities with the highest grossing revenue re in the North Cost. o Eight of the t5 cities with the highest revenue per cpit re lso locted in the North Cost. SADIE DINATALE 6

22 Pge 21 of 120 Approximtely 7o% of Airbnb hosts generte less thn $to,ooo/yer in gross revenue for operting their short-term rentl(s). Trnsient lodging txes (TLT) imposed on Airbnbs by the stte generte substntil fiscl revenue. The stte, imposing r.8% TLT on n estimted $82 million, erned pproximtely $t.5 million from Airbnb STRs in the lst yer. "[o wht extent do short-term rentls constrin the supply of h<lusing in Oregon e ities with <I00,ooo people? r Hlf of ll STRs re reserved for less thn 3o dys (36% re reserved for to orfewer dys). e ln more urbnized regions such s Portlnd Metro nd Willmette Vlley, STRs re operted s privte rooms slightly more thn s entire homes. o Perhps more ccurte determintion of housing supply constrints is the rtio of STRs (entire homes, rented for more thn 3o dys per yer) to totl housing units. Using this rtio to mesure supply constrints, STRs ccount for pproximtely z% of totl housing in the North Cost nd pproximtely 't.8%in Centrl Oregon. o For most cse study cities, dt suggests tht STRs re constrining the supply of long-term housing. o ln cse study cities, new STR growth is incresing t fster rte thn newly constructed totl housing units. o Property owners in resort communities (cse studies) cn generte more nnul revenue off STRs thn they cn off stndrd long-term rentl units. Wht re the exi:ting perceptir:ns round short-term rentls in Oregon?. ln generl, survey respondents indicted tht while residents shred mixed perceptions bout STRs, locl elected officils nd businesses within the ccommodtion sector viewed STRs s less problemtic. r STRs provide gret benefits including their bility to provide trnsient lodging tx revenue, to support tourism ctivities, nd to support communities tht rely on tourism. r STRs economiclly weken communities by impcting resources such s the vilbility of housing (especilly ffordble nd rentl housing) nd police nd city stff time who del with complints from neighbors/business owners.. Respondents who greed or strongly greed with tht sttement tht STRs evded policies nd regultions in their communities (26%), surprisingly did not ll gree tht their policies were ineffective. r Communities who do not see the need to regulte STRs indicted tht STRs re either not problem in their community (e.g. there re no STRs or not enough STRs to regulte) or tht STRs fit in with the chrcter of their community nd therefore regultion ws not necessry. r Most communities who will potentilly develop ordinnces to regulte STRs in the next five yers will do so primrily to formlize the process nd rules ssocited with it, legitimize existing situtions, develop cler nd objective stndrds, nd promote firness. How re short-term rentls currently being regulted in Oregoni r STRs re commonly referred to s short-term rentls, trnsient rentls, or vction rentls. o STRs re most commonly defined s units rented for less thn 3o dys. 5ADIE DINATALE

23 Pge 22 of 120 Most regultions for STR require tht opertors hve license nd/or permit (9zZ) nd 81% of respondents lso indicted tht their community imposes trnsient Iodging tx (or similr tx) on STRs. Respondents lso commonly regulte STRs by relying on concentrtion cps or occupncy requirements. Most respondents (6o%) find their regultions for STRs, or lck thereof, to be neither effective nor ineffective in mnging the economic benefits or negtive impcts of shortterm rentls. STR ordinnces were most commonly enforced by issunces of dministrtive cittions (62%) nd fines (58%). Conclusion We know tht the solution to STRs will be different for every city. Wht is true for Oregon is true for communities cross the United Sttes: STRs ffect cities dissimilrly nd in turn, view STRs diversely Accordingly, mny communities hve tken the experimentl nd incrementl pproch, not knowing if their policy will truly mitigte the impcts nd/or enble the benefits hoped for but needing to tril something. ln the response to short-term rentls, communities should construct regultions in coniunction with both locl, community converstion nd regionl converstion. This inclusivity spect is key to construct equitble regultions less likely to be evded nd more likely to mitigte the negtive externlities creted by STRs nd these policies themselves. Additionl best prctices re s follows. More informtion on these prctices cn be found in Chpter 3. r Define Short-Term Rentls nd Codify Regultions in City Ordinnces r Distinguish Between Short-Term Rentls o Restrict Use or lncentivize Moderte Use (rther thn bnning STRs). Normlize STRs s ResidentilActivity (with Cvets). Permit STRs in Premium Ares with Monitoring r Develop Approprite Regultory Stndrds. Require STRs to Get Permit or License. Require STR Opertors to Py Fees nd Txes Regrding enforcement, it is difficult for governments to regulte something they do not hve complete control over. lnititing community converstions to educte nd encourge pproprite use of STRs cn, however, induce culture of self-regultion nd complince. Recommendtions The following sections brek recommendtions into minimum requirements nd ncillry requirements for cities. Next, I provide recommendtions for counties/regions nd the Stte. SADIE DINATALE B

24 Pge 23 of 120 Minimum Regultory Reconrmendtions for Ail Cities Whether city hs STRs or not, communities should estblish the following regultions, even s precutionry mesure: 1. Leglly define STRs s "short-term rentls" nd estblish fir frequency of use stndrd tht is complimentry of regionl stndrds. z. Codify regultions in locl ordinnce. lmpose guest cpcity limit nd require inspections. 3. Levy trnsient lodging tx (if not imposed t the county level). 4. Require tht STR opertors register their unit(s) on n nnul bsis. Ancillry Regultory Recommendtion with Thresheilds feir Cities Vritions in number nd concentrtion of STRs should influence policy choices. The following recommendtions provide thresholds for ncillry regultions s strting point. ln tht, thresholds my vry between communities. 2, 3. Restrict (cp/limit) STRs or incentivize moderte use if STRs ccount for more thn 4% of totl housing stock. lmpose cluse tht revokes STR permit for properties tht receive more thn five nuisnce complints in clendr yer. Limit STRs in proximity to other STRs (deconcentrte) when city-wide/re-specific nuisnce complints exceed z5 complints in clendr yer. Communities should estblish fir distnce (e to zoo feet buffer between STRs), weigh equity implictions, nd re-evlute buffer distnce every two to five yers.. Before estblishing buffer distnce, cities should increse regultory stndrds nd evlute whethtr nuiince -ompl-ints ieduce (e.$ estblishing mihi mum prking stndrds my mitigte prking complints). Recomrnendtions for Counties nd Regions Smller jurisdictions my hve difficulties mnging STRs. Tht sid, counties/regions should help fcilitte proper mngement of STRs Levy trnsient lodging tx t the county level if brriers exist for cities to impose their own (due to popultion size, low prevlence of STRs in individul communities, dministrtive limittions, etc.). Estblish regionl representtive or liison to ttend Shring Economy Committee meetings (see first "Recommendtion for Oregon"). Regionl liisons should represent multiple counties. Reeommendtions for Oregon Oregon cn nd should become leder in the mngement of STRs. This will require the stte to become leder in shring economy ffirs. Estblish Shring Economy Committee to fcilitte reserch (including nlysis of STR trends) nd to ssist communities cross the stte deling with vrious issues. The objective of this committee should be one in support of shring economy ctivities. SADIE DINATALI 9

25 Pge 24 of Hire stte employee to work directly in shring economy ffirs. Responsibilities should include: o Anlyze shring economy trends cross the stte, country, nd globe o Communicte inititives, informtion, nd best prctices to governments cross the stte o Provide government ssistnce in STR mngement o Collborte with shring-economy pltforms o Collect dt o Prticipte in globl shring economy networks o Coordinte stte Shring Economy Committee meetings, trinings, nd workshops o Lunch policy demonstrtion studies to pilot regultory frmeworks nd options Mintin neutrl Trnsient Lodging Tx t 't.8%to llow regions nd cities to use their tx rtes to mnge STR growth. Estblish pool of funding to help smll communities mend Ind use ordinnces for STRs. SADIE DINATALE 10

26 Pge 25 of 120 Chpter t: lntroduction While not officilly defined by stte or federl uthorities, shortterm rentl (SfR) cn be generlly chrcterized s housing unit tht is lesed or rented for less thn 3o dys. lt is n rrngement tht involves the trde of the temporry, but not future use, of full or prtil housing unit (Flth t98o). Sometimes referred to s vction rentls, they re not new commodities of the housing mrket. ln recent yers however, technology hs gretly influenced the STR nd vction rentl mrket (Vrm zot6, Fleetwood zorz). lnternetbsed businesses such s Airbnb, VRBO, HomeTo6o, LUXbnb, CouchSurfing, HomeAwy, FlipKey, nd VCs hve given people ccess to user-friendly, globl mrketplce (i.e. Airbnb lone reches t9t countries). These compnies cter to the exchnge of short-term rentls under the coordintion of web-interfce. Tody, with STRs remining reltively unregulted, just bout nyone cn rent out room, their home, or their prtment by following simple, stremlined process. Tech-bsed pltforms (i.e. Airbnb; VRBO) tht provide mrket to short-term rentls re tking dvntge of the shring economy phenomenon. The prevlence of ccess bsed services (tht employ py-per-use models rther thn ownership of certin goods) hs incresed in recent yers. Technologicl dvnces coupled with individuls plcing higher vlue on experiences (rther thn possessions) hve lso ided in this mrket shift. This phenomenon hs llowed businesses nd individuls under this ccess/shring economy umbrell to csh in on the new opportunities this phenomenon brings. For instnce, Airbnb clims pproximtely too million users with 50o,ooo bookings/night (Smith, zott) nd is expected to ern upwrds of $j.5 million/yer by zozo (Gllgher, zott). With tht sid, in survey of Airbnb users, respondents were "nine times more likely to be more stisfied with Airbnb thn their hotel sty" (Dillow, zot6). With the introduction of new, shring economy, business models cme debte bout how existing regultions ddress these new ctivities. Debte hs considered whether the compnies tht mrket short-term rentls hve lso been ble to rep greter finncil returns by tking dvntge of regultory loop holes (llowing property owners to mrket their STRs through their site despite not being registered with the pproprite jurisdiction or despite these properties not hving permits or pying tx, if pplicble). TERMS Short-Term Rentl (STR): A housing unit, rented or lesed for less thn 3o dys; not officilly defined by stte or federl uthorities Shrins Economv: An economic nd socil ctivity tht mutulizes ccess to goods/services; tech-bsed nd grown out of the open-source community; involves peerto-peer exchnge (lterl exchnge) " shring economy is blueprint of future business ide tht explins how to link economic, envlronmentl nd socll issuestt (Dunorien et ol. zor5) Access Economv: Sugeested term for shring economy ctivities which re mrketmedited by tech-bsed, intermediry compny between suppliers nd consumers (hierrchicl exchnge) lmdct: The mesurble effect specific ctivity hs on defined re or people SADIE DINATALF- t1

27 Pge 26 of 120 The widespred use of these web-bsed pltforms show evidence of mny Ioclized benefits, dvertised to include: incresing tourism in locl communities, helping property owners ern income by renting out their unused spce, offering tourists nd visitors the experience of living like locl, nd driving visitors to res "On the one hnd, there re those who see the shring economy s tool for ddressing pressing socil justice or environmentl issues such s people estblishing time - bnks, food shring schemes or those pursing lterntive, low crbon lifestyles. At the other end of the spectrum, there re mny entrepreneurs who stnd to mke millions of dollrs from their new shring pltforms, minly by encourging people to rent out the underutilized goods they own". (Mkwn, zot3) tourists did not trditionlly flock to. Still, these compnies often fce criticism for negtive impcts (such s nuisnce issues or constrining the vilbility of housing) or for llowing its users to evde locl policy. Becuse of these rel nd perceived negtive impcts, cities hve sought to regulte short-term rentls to recoup lodging txes, prevent impcts on housing ffordbility, nd ddress neighborhood concerns round noise, trffic, nd prking. Accordingly, short-term rentls hve gined reputtion of both stisfying culturl, socil, nd economic need while not being completely without socil nd economic consequence. Purpose The purpose of the reserch project is to ssess how short-term rentls, s prt of the shring economy, directly impct smll nd mid-sized cities in Oregon vi revenue genertion nd fiscl revenue potentil. This study lso looks t wys in which demnd for STRs influence the supply of long-term housing. Better understnding these impcts will fill gp in existing literture, s most studies hve focused on how short-term rentls impct lrge cities or meg-cities. Moreover, the purpose of this project is to guge existing perceptions nd policy frmeworks of STRs in Oregon cities s to better understnd the politicl nd socil climte round this ctivity. This policy nlysis is intended to ssist plnners nd policy mkers of smll communities respond to nd better mnge STRs in order to enble the benefits of the shring economy. Methodology This study uses mixed-method-pproch. Dt nlysis used secondry sources including: o AirDnA: mrket summry nd property performnce reports r AirBnB: ggregted industry dt by city o Americn Community Survey: Housing nd Popultion chrcteristics Dt nlysis is used to nswer the questions: Wht is the prevlence nd chrcteristics of shortterm rentls in Oregon? Wht is the revenue potentil of short-term rentls in Oregon? And, to wht extent do STRs constrin the supply of housing? This nlysis specificlly looks t cities with SADIE DIi\IATALE 12

28 Pge 27 of 120 popultion of less thn too,ooo (communities tht hve been mostly excluded from existing studies on this topic). ln ddition, we creted n innovtive survey, developed on Qultrics, to get informtion bout policies nd perceptions of city dministrtors nd plnners cross Oregon. The survey hd 3z questions nd sked City mngers nd plnners to comment on the wys in which STRs impct their community. Questions lso sked City stff to comment on the wys in which vrious ctors perceive STRs in their community. Finlly, the survey sked City stff to comment on their existing or potentil policy frmework for STRs. The survey received 1oj responses out of possible 294 yielding response rte of 35%. Mp t.t. Loction of Survey Respondents t tt I q ell o, I ttt A &._ Source: Responding to Short Term Rentls in Oregon Survey, q27'2017 Further, using series of selected cse studies, I dig deeper into the connection between regultory frmeworks, perceptions of STRs, nd the ctul impct they crete in smll to mid-sized cities. Criteri for selection ws tht the city possess elevted levels of Airbnb rentls s compred to other Oregon cities nd/or possess high percentge of Airbnb rentls s compred to the community's totl housing units. Additionlly, I ensure tht cse studies represented rnge of city sizes (with popultions of under roo,ooo) nd tht selected cities cme from rnge of geogrphic regions in Oregon. Predominntly, these cities re tourist destintions. A description of the cse studies nd pplicble dt is in Appendix B. Cse studies re: Ashlnd, Bend, Depoe By, Hood River, Joseph, Lincoln City, Mnznit, Rockwy Bech, Seside, nd Sisters. Lir"nittions As in most nlyses, severl limittions exist. To enble trnsprency, this study presents the following limittions: SADIr: DlNlAl'AL t. rj

29 Pge 28 of 120 AirDnA dt ws hevily relied on for this nlysis. While the dt set ws very useful in explining both the nture of short-term rentls nd their impct in Oregon, mrgins of error re unknown nd thus, its ccurcy is questionble. I did compre AirDnA dt (presented t the property level) with Airbnb dt (limited to the city level) s sensitivity test in Appendix D nd found similrities. AirDnA dt ws lso slightly mnipulted by the resercher to remove fke nd test listings. All STRs re not dvertised or listed through the Airbnb pltform. For instnce, some property owners my use VRBO, HomeAwy, nd other pltforms to mrket their STRs. Thus, communities my hve more STRs thn wht ws documented in this study. A limittion to the /Responding to Short-Term Rentls in Oregon' survey is tht not ll cities in Oregon prticipted, mening these results re not entirely comprehensive. Some communities indicted tht they did not tke the survey becuse they do not hve ny STRs (rel nd perceived) which my hve limited lerning bout the perspectives of communities who re not currently concerned bout this component of contemporry housing discussions. A finl limittion ws time. The resercher ws unble to conduct interviews with city dministrtors or stff plnners in ech of the cse studies cities (or with regionl/stte housing experts). This restricted the bility to fully compre findings with perceptions nd to discuss potentilfuture ctions. As result, full relince ws plced on the pplicble city's survey responses (prt from Depoe By which ws not received) nd code review. S/\D!E DINATAI F 14

30 Pge 29 of 120 Chpter z: Key Findings The orgniztion of this chpter' is s follows: t) Wht is the prevlence nd chrcteristics of STRs in Oregon? z) Wht is the revenue potentil of STRs in Oregon? 3) Wht re the existing perceptions round STRs in Oregon? 4 How re STRs currently being regulted in Oregon? 5) To wht extent do STRs constrin the supply of housing in Oregon? Overrchingly, this chpter conveys findings only for cities in Oregon with popultions less thn loo,ooo (unless otherwise specified). ln tht, Portlnd, Eugene, Slem, nd Greshm were excluded from nlysis s to focus in on how STRs ff ect smller cities in Oregon. AIso, excluded from nlysis ore STRs in census-designted plces or towns (os of zor5). Wht is the prevlence nd chrcteristics of short-term rentls in Oregon? Oregon's four lrgest cities (Portlnd, Eugene, Slem, nd Greshm) encompss pproximtely 1o,ooo AirBnBs (56%of the stte's AirBnB short-term rentlstock). Cites with less thn too,ooo people (from this point further: cities) encompss pproximtely 8,ooo Airbnb STRs; roughly 44% oi totl Airbnbs for the stte. As note, Airbnb re locted within every county nd in 75% of the stte's totl cities. Assessing the pproximte number of STRs (s well s their loction nd property chrcteristics) enbles conceptuliztion of the industry. Use of existing studies provides dditionl context for findings. Airbnbs ccount for more thn 5% of totl housing in only t6 cities, indicting tht shortterm rentls re not prevlent in most jurisdictions (see Mp 2.1). Still, we must qulify this sttement with the fct tht not ll short-term rentls re equivlent to one dwelling unit. Nevertheless, for these r5 jurisdictions (Bend, Depoe By, Gston, Hood River, Joseph, Lincoln City, Long Creek, Mnznit, Mitchell, Mosier, Nehlem, Rockwy Bech, Seside, Sisters, Westfir, nd Ychts), the rtio of AirBnBs to housing units could suggest potentil housing supply constrint. This concern will be further ddressed lter in this report. 'This chpter uses AirDnA dt s well s informtion from the Americn Community Survey to pint picture of the nture of STRs in Oregon s well s their impct. The Responding to Short-Term Rentls in Oregon Survey ws lso used to understnd existing policy frmeworks nd perceptions of STRs. SADIE DINATALE 15

31 Pge 30 of 120 Mp z.l. lndiction of Potentil Housing Supply Constrint for Cities with Higher Portion of STRs -) Chl.r wlft Hilh.rl SIR b tcul llourlng n.6o :5%.5% :7%-e% r.l ro". r:l i 13% - 46% Popslrdq P.rc6r Chrnf. (20l},20lg! I s-6% ro -3-5% ;.. j-3_4%to-o.4% I t.o.ss6 to.sx l-..*l e.rx ro s-zx I s.eq6 to e.e96 Source: AirDnA Property Dt, Retrieved 2OI7. United Sttes Census, Americn Community Survey, Popultion Dt, Excludes Portlnd, Eugene, Slem, nd Greshm. Airbnbs re most prevlent in Centrl Oregon nd the North Cost. ln Centrl Oregon, AirBnBs ccount for pproximtely 4% of the region's totl housing stock. ln the North Cost, Airbnbs ccount for 5% of the region's totl housing stock. Agin, this is not precise equivlency; rther it is n opportunity for conceptuliztion. For cities in the remining six regions, Airbnbs ccount for pproximtely r% of the totl housing stock. As "the top five ctivities engged in by trvelers on overnight trips to Oregon were shopping, visiting bech/wterfront, visiting ntionl/stte prk, visiting lndmrk/historic site, nd hiking/bcking," it is understndble why these two regions ttrct so mny tourists nd visitors nd further explins why there is such demnd for STRs.' From zot4 to zot6, the number of new STRs creted incresed by roughly 180%. ln this sme time, but by region, the number of new STRs creted incresed most drsticlly for Southest Oregon (z8z%), Portlnd Metro (4o%), nd CentrlOregon (ztt%), see Figure 2.2. ': Longwoods, lnterntionl, USA. (zor5). Oregon 2o15 Visitor Report. SAD DIN]ATALE 'r6

32 Pge 31 of 120 Figure z.z. Growth of Newly Creted Short-Term Rentls by Region, zot4 to zot6 282% 23o% 211% 17o% $3% 156% 127% 32% Southest Portlnd Centrl North Willmette Southern Northest South Oregon Metro Oregon Cost Vlley Oregon Oregon Cost Source: AirDnA Property Dt, Retrieved 2OL7. Excludes Portlnd, Eugene, Slem, nd Greshm Short-term rentls tend to be in lower income neighborhoods more commonly. To mesure, neighborhood is defined s the properties'census trct nd lower income s medin household income of census trct divided by the county's medin household income ln res like the South Cost, North Cost, nd Centrl Oregon, I find more thn hlf of the regions' properties re geogrphiclly locted in lower income neighborhoods, see Tble 2.9 Tble 2.9. Properties in Trcts with Higher/Lower Medin Household lncomes thn County, zot5 Less Thn Equlto/More Region Totl County Thn Countv South Cost Oregon Centrl Oregon North Cost Oregon Southern Oregon Willmette Vlley Northest Oregon Portlnd Metro Southest Oregon 66% 6s% 64% 42% 40% 37% 35% 27% 34% 3s% 36% 58o/o 60% 63% 6s% 73% 309 2,887 1, L77 1,052 Totl g% 46% 8,0L7 Source: AirDnA Property Dt, RetrievedzOtT.ACS L5, Medin Household lncome. Excludes Portlnd, Eugene, Slem, nd Greshm. 142 Most Airbnb hosts operte single STR listed s the entire home. Approximtely, 4,4oo hosts operte n Airbnb in smll to mid-sized Oregon cities. Of these, g7o hosts (zz%), operte more thn one STR. Approximt ely 7o% of Airbnb hosts rent out their entire home/prtment (either primry or vction home) nd nother 30% re listed or rented out s privte room (the remining t% is listed s shred room). This dt revels bit bout STR hosts. For instnce, while most hosts re renting out their entire housing unit, substntil portion of hosts (pproximtely t/3) pper to be interested in mking supplementry income solely off some of their extr spce. This is n importnt distinction bout the use of short-term rentls. To s of zot the household size for SADII DINATALT 17

33 Pge 32 of 120 owner/renter-occupied housing units ws pproximtely 2.5 people while lmost 60% of housing units hd 3 or more bedrooms.3 Accordingly, despite ctul motives, mny shortterm rentl opertors re cpitlizing on the efficient use of spce, driving sustinble prctices. Most STRs re trditionl property types. Approximtely 6o% of ll listed properties re houses nd nother t3% re prtments. Other common STR property types lso remin more trditionl, to include: condominiums, bed nd brekfsts, cbins, nd townhouses (see Tble 2.3). Lrger cities tend to encompss Irger percentge of prtment buildings, indictive of more urbnized res. Tble 2.3. Airbnb Property Types (using ll cities for dded context) Property Types House Aprtment Other Condominium Bed & Brekfst Cbin Townhouse Cmper/RV Guesthouse Vill Bunglow Loft Boutique Hotel Tent Chlet Yurt Tipi Cities with Pop. < 100,000 4,877 1, L t2 60.0% 73.1% 5.8% s.2% 3s% 3.U/o 2.2% L.4% 0.9% o.8% 0.8o/o O.7o/o 0.5% o.5% 0.2% O.2o/o O.Io/o AllCities 10, I o/o 2L.7o/o 3.5o/o 3.5% 2.5% 1.8% L.7o/o L.L% t.r% 0.6% o.7% O.9o/o o.2% 0.4o/o o.t% o.t% 0.t% Property Types Timeshre Hostel Cstle Bot Dorm Nture Lodge Treehouse Tri n Hut lsl nd Lighthouse Entire Floor Erth House lgloo Cve Vn Totl Source: AirDnA property dt, Excludes Portlnd, Eugene, Slem, nd Greshm Cities with Pop. < 100,(x)0 10 I L t L 0.1% 0.1% o.1% 0.!% 0.1% 0.1% o.1% 0.0% o.u/o O.Oo/o O.tr/o All Cities 10 t t % 0.L% 0.1% 0.I% 0.7% 0.0% O.U/o 0.0% O.tr/o 0.0% 0.Oo/o 0.0% 0.U/o 0.o% 0,@/o t 0.0% 8,t32 Lon% t8,392 t0r/o Wht is the revenue potentil of short-term rentls in Oregon? Anlysis of the finncil detils of STRs llows one to understnd the profitbility of these units (for hosts nd municiplities) s well s the potentil economic development opportunity they cn bring. Short-term rentls generte substntil revenue in Oregon. Hosts hve erned n ggregted $82 million in the lst yer. This indictes potentil positive gins to locl economies ssuming hosts reinvest Ioclly. After discounting lrger cities, Centrl Oregon nd the North Cost fr out ern other regions. These two regions lso chrge higher dily rte/airbnb on verge nd receive more nnul bookings (Tble 2.4). I United Sttes Census. Americn Community Survey, ,, Selected Housing Chrcteristics for Oregon SADIE DINAT,'\LE rii

34 Pge 33 of 120 Tble 2.4. Annul Revenue Erned by Hosts nd Stte Tx Revenue Erned (estimte) Regions Centrl Oregon North Cost Willmette Vlley Portlnd Metro Southern Oregon South Cost Northest Oregon Southest Oregon Averge Dily Rte per Property s s s s s s s s L Totl Bookings Annul 45,391 38,927!4,026 tl,172 L3,209 5,7LO 3,307 2,977 Annul Revenue 5 37,539,776 S 24,975,499 $ 5,315,475 $ 4,937,697 $ 4,886, ,335, ,739,653 S 1,L43,628 Stte Levy (1.8%) Annul Ernings $ s $ s s s s 5 675,716 M7,759 95,679 88,879 87,962 42,UO 31,296 2qs8s Totl s LU L35,7L9 582,773,079 S 1,489,915 Source: AirDnA. Airbnb property level dt. Retrieved Excludes Portlnd, Eugene, Slem, nd Greshm Nine of the 15 cities with the highest grossing revenue re in the North Cost. Still, Tble 2.5 shows tht Bend receives fr more substntil mount of revenue (ccounting for pproximtely 86% of ll revenue from Centrl Oregon). Additionlly, of these highest grossing cities, nine hve Airbnbs tht ccount for t lest 5% of its housing stock (Bend, Depoe By, Hood River, Joseph, Lincoln City, Mnznit, Rockwy Bech, Seside, nd Ychts). Tble 2.5. Annul Revenue Generted with Bend Seside Cities Lincoln City Cnnon Bech Hood River Ashlnd Rockwy Bech Depoe By Beve rton Mnznit Newport Region Centrl Oregon North Cost North Cost North Cost Centrl Oregon Southern Oregon North Cost North Cost Portlnd Metro North Cost North Cost Annul Revenue Szz,zot,qEg s7,19&080 54,14s,729 52,876,32o s2,426,970 Sz,teo,z+t sl_,699,036 s1., !,620,76r s1,36&957 Dt for HiEhest GrossinE Cities 51,322,sr3 s63,141 Redmond Tillmook Ychts Joseph Centrl Oregon North Cost North Cost Northest Oregon s1,036,179 SL,or4,97o St,ooo,szg $gg,tgz s42,518 $eg,zgo $62,675 So+,sse Source: AirDnA Property Dl,2017. Excludes Portlnd, Eugene, Slem, nd Greshm Annul Revenue Annul Revenue Annul Revenue per Property per Property Per Property (Mx) (Men) (Std Dev) 51s7,773 S198,425 $1r7,250 s2o3,6l7 $81,215 S59,876 s98,481 ssg,z88 564,717 S9o,051 s1.4, , ,26s $35,077 s7,537 58,309 S15,925 s13,866 54,i39 s16,105 s9,380 56,&z s11,s41 5\4,7t4 s17,176 s!8, ,235 S14,601 s39,131 Sto,428 Sro,gzs 5L6,L70 5t6,207 57,833 s16,773 5L1.,r42 58,796 s1_3,862 $tt,zez S13,s23 Eight of the 15 cities with the highest revenue per cpit re lso locted in the North Cost (see Figure 2.6). Revenue per cpit for the stte, excluding cities over loo,ooo nd using ACS popultion dt f or zo'r5, is pproximtely $54 dollrs per person in the lst yer. SADiE DINATALT 19

35 Pge 34 of 120 Figure 2.6. Cities with highest revenue generted per cpit, zor5 popultion 53,463 53,214 5t,8i7 ll 51,521 il;:)76 $'l,iio 5g+6 $879 *494 I.et$"""d $"""",r o*r*.{].us 5421 *94 s37g ttl 5327 I 3256 ())7 II."s'r-"* Source: AirDnA Property Dt, U.S. Americn Community Survey, L5 Popultion. Excludes Portlnd, Eugene, 5lem, nd Greshm. Displyed in nother wy, Figure 2.7 shows STR revenue per cpit by county with n Airbnb property dot density lyer. Figure 2.7. Counties with STR Revenue per Cpit Courilies by SIR Revenue per CoSrilo $0-$8 o o! o o o o oo o ff szz-ss $-gto f I $ror-$sor Cilies by lotol AhBnBs. 0- l o o 2n-442 O 4$-2v6 $e - $26 Source: AirDnA Property Dl,20t7. Excludes Portlnd, Eugene, Slem, nd Greshm Approximtely 7o% of Airbnb hosts generte less thn glo,ooo/yer in gross revenue for operting their short-term rentl(s), see Figure 2.8. Of those hosts, 3o% generte less thn $6oo/yer. As independent contrcts re expected to report income erned to the lr5 fter SADIE DINATALI 2A

36 Pge 35 of 120 g6oo (vi ro99-mlsc form), lrge mjority of hosts my be outside the lw. ln tht, Airbnb only issues io99-k tx forms to hosts who "ern over $zo,ooo nd hve 2oo+ trnsctions in the clendr y r".+ Outside of submitting io99-k form to select opertors, Airbnb psses on responsibility to hosts to report ny income erned suggesting they consult tx professionl for income reporting ssistnce. Figure 2.8. Percent of Hosts by Annul Revenue Erned gloo,ooo nd Up I o.lz g75,ooo to $99,999 I.z n = 8,132 g5o,ooo to $74,ggg I zz g35,oooto$49, z g25,oooto$34,999 f oz g15,ooo to g24,999 f n% glo,ooo tol14,ggg J gz Less thn $1o,ooo 68% Source: AirDnA, Property Dt, Retrieved Excludes Portlnd, Eugene, Slem, nd Greshm Trnsient lodging txes (TLT) imposed on Airbnbs by the stte generte substntil fiscl revenue. The stte, imposing t.8%tlf on n estimted $82 million, erned pproximtely gr.5 million from Airbnb STRs in the lst yer. Still, Oregon's TLT rte is much lower s compred to other stte levied txes on this sme lodging type. Of the sttes which levy one or more stte txes on Airbnbs, rtes rnge from t.8%to 14.5% nd verge bout 8%.5 Mny cities do not levy TLTs on STRs. Airbnb indictes tht nine cities6 levy tx on STRs mrketed through their site, verging 8.5% nd rnging from 4%to 10.4%.7 lf ll remining cities levied just 5% locl option levy/tlt on STRs, n dditionl, ggregted $z million could be erned (estimte). This would be in ddition to the $4 million lredy being erned by cities who do chrge TLT or similr tx on STRs. I note the discrepncy tht while Airbnb indictes tht nine cities levy tx on STRs, the Responding to Short Term Rentls in Oregon Survey found tht 21 communities levy tx on STRs. This suggests tht mny communities 4 AirBnB. Should I expect to receive tx form from Airbnb? Retrieved My AirBnB. ln wht res is occupncy tx collection nd remittnce by Airbnb vilble? Retrieved My 5, Cities re: Beverton, Bend, Cottge Grove, Eugene, Florence, Lincoln City, Newport, Portlnd, Springfield. Counties were Lne, Multnomh, Tillmook, nd Wshington. z AirBnB. ln wht res is occupncy tx collection nd remittnce by Airbnb vilble? Retrieved My 5,2017 ' SADIE DINATALI 21

37 Pge 36 of 120 imposing STR/TLT tx hve not communicted this informtion to STR web-bsed pltforms like Airbnb. To wht extent do short-term rentls constrin the supply of housing? Communities cross Oregon re concerns whether STRs constrin the supply of housing (long-term rentls, owner-occupied units, workforce or ffordble housing, etc.). This section provides some evidence to get us closer to understnding this impct. Hff of f l STRs re reserved for less thn 3o dys (36% re reserved for ro or fewer dys). As Tble 2.12 on the following pge shows, z8% of STRs re reserved for 3o to 9o dys, 't7% re reserved for 9t to t8o dys, nd 5% re reserved for r8o dys or more. The verge reservtion dy cross the stte is 5z dys in clendr yer. ln more urbnized regions such s Portlnd Metro nd Willmette Vlley, STRs re operted s privte rooms slightly more thn s entire homes. ln Centrl Oregon nd the North Cost, STRs re being operted more commonly s entire homes, providing some indiction of the type of spce vilble (e.g. more second homes, vction houses, etc.), see Tble z.rz. SADIE DINATALE 2),

38 Pge 37 of 120 Tble z.tz. Airbnbs Orgnized by Listing Type, Dys Reserved, nd Region Reservtion Entire Privte Room Shred Room Totl Less thn 30 Dys 30 to 90 Dys 9L to 180 Dys 181 or More 4% 1% o% North Cost Oregon 1, Less thn 30 Dys 30 to 90 Dys 91to 180 Dys 181 or More 35% 260/o 13% 38% 24% t8% 6% LL% 5% 4% 6% 3% 3% 1% Io/o 0% 0o/o o% Oo/o o% o% 46% 32% 77% 5% 1,72O M% 27% 2t% 7% Less thn 30 Dys 30 to 90 Dys 91to 1"80 Dys 181 or More 29% 27% L2% 3% 25% 60/o 3% o% 1% o% o% o% ss% 27% 160/o 3% Less thn 30 Dys 30 to 90 Dys 9L to 180 Dys 181 or More 2L% 9% 8o/o 3% 34% 15% 5% 2% 2% t% o% o% 57o/o 25% t3% 5% Less thn 30 Dys 30 to 90 Dys 91 to 180 Dys '181 or More 36% 23% I3o/o 4% I2o/o 8% 4% L% 0% o% o% o% 48% 3r% 160/o 5% Less thn 30 Dys 30 to 90 Dys 91 to L80 Dys 181 or More 41% 2s% L2% 1% 7t% 3% 6% o% t% 0% o% o% 52% 28% L9o/o I% Less thn 30 Dys 30 to 90 Dys 91to 1.80 Dys 181 or More 28% 14% L2% 4% 24% 9% 7% 2% 1% o% o% Oo/o 52% 23% 194/o 6% Less thn 30 Dys 30 to 90 Dys 23% t4% 91 to 180 Dys 9% 7%6 o% 77% 181 or More 2% t% o% 3% Totl 69% 3tr/o t% 9,132 Less thn 30 Dys 32% L7%!/o 49% 30 to 90 Dys 91 to 180 Dys 181 Dys or More 2t% L3% 4% Source: AirDnA. Airbnb property level dt. Retrieved Excludes Portlnd, Eugene, Slem, nd Greshm 28% t3% 7% 5% 7% I% o% o% o% o% 53% 27% 28% 17% 5o/o SADIE DINATALE 23

39 Pge 38 of 120 Perhps more ccurte determintion of housing supply constrints is the rtio of STRs (entire homes, rented for more thn 30 dys per yer) to totl housing units. Using this rtio to mesure supply constrints, STRs ccount for pproximtely z% of totl housing in the North Cost nd pproximtely t8% in Centrl Oregon. Remining regions ttribute to less thn t%. For most cse study cities, dt suggests tht STRs re constrining the supply of longterm housing. Hood River, Joseph, nd Seside's housing stock re prticulrly influenced by STRs (see Tble 2.'B or Appendix A, Tble B.7). Tble z.t lndiction of STRs Potentil Hous s Cse Studies Airbnbs (Entire Home, % of Totl Rented for 30r Dvs) Housing Units Ashlnd 92 T% Bend 997 3% Depoe By 56 4% Hood River % Joseph 4T 7% Lincoln City L54 2% Mnznit 45 4% Rockwy Bech 63 3% Seside 2L5 5o/o Sisters 43 3o/o Totl L,8t4 3% Source: AirDnA Property Dt, Retrieved2017 Airbnbs (Entire Home, % of Totl Rented for 91+ Housi Units W t% Lo/o 10/ z/o 75% 4% L% 2% 2o/o 0o/o 3o/o L% ln cse study cities, STR growth is incresing t fster rte thn totl housing units re (see Appendix B, Tble 8.5). ln some of these communities, household formtion is lso incresing t fster rte thn the construction of new housing units, indicting housing supply constrints (Bend, Depoe By, Joseph, nd Mnznit). Property owners in resort communities (see Appendix B, Tble 8.6) cn generte more nnul revenue off STRs thn they cn off stndrd long-term rentl units. Therefore, in these communities, there my be more of motive for property owners to gperte STRs (lthough the differentil in time nd cost of mintennce for long-term vs short-term rentls is unknown). Wht re the existing perceptions round short-term rentls in Oregon? Using the Responding to Short-Term Rentl Survey, nlysis cn delve into the existing perceptions tht communities hold over STRs. In generl, survey respondents indicted tht while residents shred mixed perceptions bout STRs, locl elected officils nd businesses within the ccommodtion sector viewed SADIE DINATAI F 24

40 Pge 39 of 120 STRs s less problemtic. Still, respondents who indicted tht STRs my be more problemtic in their own community thn in other Oregon communities or comprble communltles cross the U.S., tended to gree or strongly gree tht STRs irtrpcted the vilbility of ffordble nd workforce housing(18%),long-term rentl housing (78%), nd owner-occupied housing (56%). STRs provide gret benefits including their bility to provide trnsient lodging tx revenue, to support tourism ctivities, nd to support communities tht rely on tourism. For instnce, they serve mrket need by providing dditionl lodging options (especilly for communities without ny trditionl ccommodtion types) nd thus, they bring in tourists tht might not hve otherwise visited. Furthermore, they provide income nd employment opportunities, llowing homeowners to get extr use out of their properties (thereby mking homes more ffordble). STRs economiclly weken communities by impcting resources such s the vilbility of housing (especilly ffordble nd rentl housing) nd police nd city stff time who del with complints from neighbors/business owners. On the ltter point, slightly over hlf of survey respondents indicted tht residents hve rised nuisnce issues within the lst five yers. Among the cited nuisnce complints include: prking concerns (78%), noise concerns (67%), grbge nd outdoor clutter concerns (56%), high occupncy levels (485), nd excessive prking (45%). Furthermore, respondents indicted concern over the possibility tht hosts could be individuls or compnles from out of the stte tht tke their revenue with them. Finlly, respondents indicted tht STRs cn economiclly weken communities in tht they tend to be operted sesonlly creting periods of no economic stimultion followed by community tht flters in the off-seson. Respondents who greed or strongly greed with tht sttement tht STRs evded policies nd regultions in their communities (26%) still did not ll gree tht their policies were ineffective. ln tht, of tht z6%, pproximtely zo% indicted their policy ws somewht effective, 44%indicted their policy ws neither effective nor ineffective, nd 36% indicted their policy ws somewht (t6%) or very ineffective (zo%). Communities who do not see the need to regulte indicted tht STRs re either not problem in their community (e.g. there re no STRs or not enough STRS to regulte) or tht STRs fit in with the chrcter of their community nd therefore regultion is not necessry. Other resons why communities hve not pursued regultion ws the issue hs not been rised by community members or tht stff resources nd time ws preventing them from dopting policies. Most communities who will potentilly develop ordinnces to regulte STRs in the next five yers will do so primrily to formlize the process nd rules ssocited with it, legitimize existing situtions, develop cler nd obiective stndrds, nd promote firness. Still, some respondents indicted wnting regultions s the STR trend is incresing nd they wnt to mitigte impct before STRs become burden, or becuse they do not wnt to be overrun by STRs. The desire to rep trnsient tx revenue ws lso common motivtion for regultion. S/\DII DINATALI: 2')

41 Pge 40 of 120 How re short-term rentls currently being regulted in Oregon? The Responding to Short-Term Rentls in Oregon Survey lso provided informtion bout existing wys STRs re being regulted in the stte. The following provides some informtion bout previling policy frmeworks. STRs re commonly referred to s trnsient rentl or vction rentls. Less commonly, some refer to STRs s trveler/ccessory trveler ccommodtions, bed nd brekfsts, motels, or RV prks. Some of these less common terms (e.g. RV prks) re used in lieu of term specific to STRs s policies hve not cught up to this housing trend. STRs re most commonly defined s units rented for less thn 3o dys. Some policies indicte tht they must be rented for certin number of dys before qulifying s STR (e.g. t lest 1o dys in clendr yer). Lese type (e.g. less thn month-to-month bsis) ws lso found to be used. Most regultions for STR require tht opertors hve license nd/or permit (gz%) nd 8t% of respondents lso indicted tht their community imposes trnsient lodging tx (or similr tx). While fees vry widely, by cost nd by type (e.g. conditionl use permit, shortterm rentl licenses, business license, etc.) tx rtes tend to remin more consistent (see Tble z.ro). The following tble provides some dt on fees nd tx rtes. Tble z.ro. Men Medin Fee Rte F Stndrd Devition for Fee nd Tx Rtes s s s 498 3s8 554 Men Medin Tx Rte Stndrd Devition 7.4% 7.5% 2.3% Rnge Min Mx s s s 2, Rnge Min Mx 8.6% 1.8% LO.4% Source: Responding to Short-Term Rentls in Oregon Survey, y-q20 nd y- Q21,2017 Respondents lso commonly regulte STRs by relying on concentrtion cps/limits or occupncy requirements. Restricting STRs to certin zones, dopting guest behvior stndrds, or mking properties subject to review nd inspection (mking determintions on cse-by-cse bsis) hve lso been put into plce to mitigte nuisnce nd promote helth, sfety, nd wellbeing. Most respondents (6o%) find their regultions for STRs, or lck thereof, to be neither effective nor ineffective in mnging the economic benefits or negtive impcts of shortterm rentls. Approximtely z't% found their regultions, or lck thereof, to be very or somewht effective nd t8% found them very or somewht ineffective. Still, we note tht generous portion of those tht found their policies/lck of policies to be neither effective or ineffective did not ctully hve ny regultory frmework. This cn be explined in tht mny smller communities in Oregon still do not hve mny STRS (if ny) nd thus, do not hve mny of the sme concerns s other communities (e.g. round nuisnce issues or SAD DIN/\TAI.[ )_6

42 Pge 41 of 120 housing supply concerns), see Figure z.tt. Noting tht STRs re unchrted territory for mny cities, it my tke time to dopt the pproprite regultory frmework tht works best for ech communlty. Figure z.rr. Effectiveness of Short-Term Rentl Ordinnce or Lck of Ordinnce /o/o b17% Very Effective 38% 25% k o%j Somewht Neither Somewht Very Effective Effective nor lneffective lneffective lneffective Sourcc: Rcsponding to Short-Term Rentls in Oregon Survey, Q25,2017 r Hs Ordinnce (n = z4) : No Ordinnce (n = 54; STR ordinnces were most commonly enforced by issunces of dministrtive cittions (62%) nd fines (le%). ln ddition, mny respondents commented on the fct tht enforcement ws chllenge. SADIT DINATALE 27

43 Pge 42 of 120 Chpter 3: Conclusions This chpter delibertes the findings discussed in chpter 2 nd uses the literture review in Appendix A to provide some theoreticl underpinnings. Primrily, this chpter discusses best wys Oregon plnners nd policy mkers cn respond to STRs, should they wnt to. Exmples re provided throughout to enhnce understnding or to provide those interested with more informtion. However, explicit recommendtions re lid out in the following chpter. Smller jurisdictions outside of Oregon nd cross the United Sttes my lso find use out of these best prctices. Finlly, this chpter outlines possible, future steps for continued reserch on this topic to ensure more ccurte policy responses. How should policy mkers nd plnners in Oregon respond to shortterm rentls? We know tht the solution to STRs will be different for every city. Wht is true for Oregon is true for communities cross the United Sttes: STRs ffect cities dissimilrly nd, in turn, they view STRs diversely. Accordingly, mny communities hve tken the experimentl nd incrementl pproch, not knowing if their policy will truly mitigte the impcts nd/or enble the benefits hoped for but needing to tril something. Performnce of STR policies re still unknown. We need more dt nd rigorous sttisticl reserch to mesure the impcts nd policy tretments given. ln the mentime, nd while much is still unknown, following some generl best prctices to mnge STRs my prove fruitful. ln Oregon, I find tht when linking existing policy to perceptions, in generl, policy rections hve met community rections. ln tht, communities unchllenged by STRs (or where STRs re not community concern) tend to be undunted by the need to regulte, s n existing prctice or s future precution. Communities, who re chllenged by STRs (t ny extreme) nd/or where community members (residents, locl elected officils, etc.) hve rised the issue, hve generlly dopted or mended their regultions recently (since zooo) or re plnning to in the next five yers. lnclusivity is the key to construct equitble regultions tht re less likely to be evded nd more likely to mitigte the negtive externlities creted by these policies. Reserch hs lredy posited four brod pproches to regultion: centrlized regultion, self-regultion, no regultion, nd shred regultion (see Figure 3.r on the following pge). Shred regultion, deemed the most effective pproch, is intuitive to "Users in prticulr should be t the centre [sic] of the regultory process becuse they could ply greter role in complince" (Blrm, zot6). regultory best prctices generlly, in which policies for STRs should be no different. lncluding locl community members nd business stkeholders in discussions bout regultion is vluble. Not only will this pproch generte stronger regultions but policy mkers cn lso lern the wys in which people in their community wnt tke prt in this shring economy ctivity. SADIE DINATALF zb

44 Pge 43 of 120 Tble 3.t. Brod Approches to Regulte Short-Term Rentls centralised RIGUL.j\I:CN re NO REETJi A].!ON n rru CITIZENS ARE PARTICIPA]IVE self tii.gui..i i0n T ffiffi 5H ARE D R!: OU l..at I 0 i.l n nrc ffiffi 'nrrs grrtl shows four reguttory options lor tle shrirg economy. Difierences in povrer between ech stkeholder re signilied by lhe size of rhe brs. Nole tht in the bsence 0f reguliion, power is vrible but terds tc be heid iry lhose in government nd bl:siness. We p'opo5e ddoplrnq!lrred Requirtion. ncrv co-opertive pproch bsed on citizens being more prliciptive nd power being drspersed ec;ulty rnong stkeholders. I eolrcvurxens I lrolr- ro A0MrNrsrRATrvE professronals fi uvesrons ffi BUSINESS LEADERS DESIGN ERS cor'ruuurrv orcanrsers I usrns tconsumers ANo workersi Source: Blrm, Brhmie (2016). I Accordingly, regultion should be prt of community converstion s it is necessry to understnd the true impcts tht STRs hve on hosts, ccommodtion sector businesses, nd residents. Regultion should be prt of regionl converstion s most res in Oregon receive regionl tourism, nd therefore regultory frmeworks in one community (e.g. the option of bnning outright) cn hve unintended consequences on nerby jurisdictions (e.9. incresing STRs usge potentilly ffecting their housing vilbility more thn otherwise). ldelly, shring economy pltforms should be involved too. For instnce, policy mkers nd policy monitors need big dt to construct useful regultory frmeworks nd these pltforms hve this missing piece. Jurisdictions hving ccess to udited, dtbses or summry dt will help improve the wy locl governments mnge STRs (Sundrrjn, 2016).8 Thus, while community nd regionl converstions should be given, dditionl pproches re more vrible. Compiled below re severl, generl, best prctices. Jurisdictions should consider these pretiees by reviewing them in context of their community. Define Shrt-Term Rentls Codify Regultions in City Orelir:nees The first step in ttempting to respond to STRs is to hve it defined in n ordinnce. Mny communities hve no frmework in plce to ddress STRs which hs presented chllenges in mitigting issues tht rise. Some communities, lcking n pproprite definition hve relied on similr lodging terminology, such s temporry living ccommodtions (e.g. hotels, motels, extended-sty hotels, etc.), to ddress issues tht rise but this is not n dequte prctice forthe 8 STRs dt is becoming incresingly esy to ccess free of chrge or for predetermined prices. Collborting with cdemic institutions cn help reduce the cost of dt, nd if purchsed on stte or regionl level, cn reduce the nce on bsis Si\DIF DINIAIAI F 29

45 Pge 44 of 120 long term. STRs re different thn trditionl lodging nd should be regulted ccordingly. The best pproch is to define the use s "short-term rentls." Terminology such s vction rentl should lso be reconsidered s it implies tht these units re only used for tourism or recretionl purposes. ln ctulity, STRs re used by those on prolonged business trips or by existing or potentil residents who re in the process of looking for housing in prticulr community nd therefore uninterested in long-term lese. ln ddition to terminology, frequency of use stndrd should be determined. The common stndrd is less thn 3o dys in clendr yer or less thn 30 consecutive dys but this cn vry nd llow for more flexibility. As best prctice, generte officil designtion in conjunction with locl, community converstion nd regionl converstion. Communities where STRs re not highly prevlent my fir well with looser stndrd (e.g. less thn 120 dys in clendr yer) while other communities my enforce stricter stndrd (e.g. less thn r5 dys in clendr yer). Once defined, this ctivity will become esier to clssify nd regulte usge. lt lso Iegitimizes STRs so residents who wnt to operte STR cn do so leglly. Eqully importnt, this becomes the only wy for communities to collect txes on STRs. Despite commentry of communities tht lck ny STRs (in relity or s perceived) indicting there is no need to regulte, ny community with residencies cn, t ny time-be ffected by STRs. Therefore, the growing trend of STRs requires communities to tke precution nd be proctive. The following re exmples of definitions for locl, Oregon ordinnces: City of Gerhrt: "Vction Rentl Dwelling. Any structure, or ny portion of ny structure, which is occupied or offered or designed for trnsient occupncy for less thn 3o dys for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes; nd includes houses, cbins, condominiums, prtment units or other dwelling units, or portions of ny of these dwelling units, tht re used for temporry humn occupncy, provided such occupncy is less thn 3o-dy period." City of McMinnville: "Vction Home Rentl. The Use of dwelling unit by ny person or group of persons entitled to occupy for rent for period of less thn zr (twenty-one) consecutive dys.". City of Mnznit: "Short Term Rentl. A dwelling unit tht is rented to ny person on dy to dy bsis or for period of less thn thirty (3o) consecutive nights." Distinguish Between Short-Term Rentls While ll STRs function similrly, they re not ll the sme. STRs cn be n entire home, or shred/privte room. They cn be locted in the min house/prtment or be locted in secondry dwelling on the property. Further, some STRs re used for single night or weekend while others cn be reserved for severl weeks to month t time. ln ddition to durtion, frequency lso distinguishes STRs in tht neighbor my not notice single tourist or fmily who hve rented out house for weekend but my notice when there re new visitors every week or more thn 3o visitors/new fmilies in single yer. SADIE DINATALE 3o

46 Pge 45 of 120 Thus, policies tht differentite between types of STRs will promote firness nd equitbility. Tiered restrictions cn be used to mke it less finncilly burdensome on property owners who re interested in rerrtirrg out Llreil lrurrre lul less Ll rrr to dys in cletrdt-yer cot'l]pred to high volume owners (someone who rents their home out two to three times for 3o consecutive dys in clendr yer). Per exmple, "rising the cost for high volume listings of short-term prtments to the point where Iong-term residentil leses become more profitble" cn be considered useful strtegy to discourge "hoteliztion" (Ktz, zot5). With tht, more lenient requirement for those renting out single room cn encourge property efficiency. For communities with ffordble housing issues, higher fees for STRs in ccessory/secondry dwelling units my incentivize property owners to use tht vluble spce for full-time residents s opposed to visitors. There should lso be distinction between certin STRs nd second homese. For n exmple, visit the City of Ashlnd's Development code which differentites between "Trvelers' Accommodtions" nd "Accessory Trvelers' Accommodtions." o (t8.z.3.zoo) Restrict Use or lncentivize Moderte Use Literture ttests tht the 'bnning STR outright' policy response will not likely fix housing vilbility or ffordbility issues due the mount of STRs there re in most cities (smll portion, comprtively). Further, literture hypothesizes tht bnning outright cn hve more unintended, negtive repercussions by preventing the positive spects tht the shrlng economy brings to residents nd locl economies vi this tourism niche (Short Term Rentl Advoccy Center). This is not to sy tht bnning is not legitimte policy pproch prticulrly in res in housing crisis. However, in smller jurisdictions, where neighborhoods re less dense nd where housing tends to hve lrger footprints, bnning outright cn lso disllow efficient uses of individul properties. Accordingly, I provide two lterntive options tht my better enble the benefits of STRs while still llowing proper mngement of STRs (see Figure 3.2). Regultory pths for ech option re lid out in the following chpter. e Hood River, Oregon mkes this distinction in their zot5 Housing Needs Assessment. This STR/second home distinction is vluble s their uses hve different sets of implictions. With tht sid, second home hs more impct on the vilbility of housing thn does STR in room of somebody's prilely lwg[e SADIE DINATALE 31

47 Pge 46 of 120 Altemtives to the Pol Reslricl Use of Bnn Purpose: to limit the number of short-term rentols in o communily or in pcrticulor oreos of o community Short-Term Rentls Incenlivize Moderole Use Purpose: to encouroge properly owners to responsibily limit how they use their properties os short-term rentols Advnlges.' systemoticolly controls the prevolence ond influence of short-term rentols Disodvonfoges: potentiol for policy evosion; concerns over foirness (who is ollowed to porticipote) Advntoges.' preserv es property rights; permits efficient use of porticipoting properties Disodvonfoges: poteniiol for property owners to choose not to moderqte use (especiolly those with higher-incomes) Exomple: ln Monzoniio, Oregon short-term rentols ore ollowed outright with o percentoge cop on the number of short-term rentols permitted in some oreos. A woiting list is used for eligible homeowners who would oiherwise be eligible for o license to operote. More intormolion: Monzonito, Oregon. Ordinonce No. l0-03 (As omended byord. No. l /7/l6l, "An Ordinonce Estoblishing Rules ond Regulotions Reloting io Short Term Rentols" Exomple: ln Portlond. Moine, onnuol registrotion fees for non-owner occupied shortterm rentols ore twice os expensive thon those for owner occupied units. ln oddition, fees increose for eoch unit (e.g. ronging from $100 for the first unit to $2,000 for the fifth unit for owner-occupied units ond $200 for the first unit to $4,000 for the fifth unit for non-owner occupied units)^ More informlion: Portlond, Moine. Amendment to Portlond CityCode Chopter 6 ond Chopter 14, Re: Short Term Rentols. hltp://portlondmoine.gov/document- C enter/home/view/ I 5848 Source: DiNtle, Sdie (2017). Assessing nd Responding to Short-Term Rentls: Enbling the Benefits of the Shring Economy. These progressive options help to "ensure tht people only occsionlly rent out their house whilst wy (shring economy), rther thn run permnent, unregulted hotel (not shring economy)" by regulting "the rentl of homes in such wy tht it becomes prt of the shring economy s previously defined" (Frenken, et l. zor5). Determintion bout wht route locl government should tke is contingent upon the wy in which property owners operte STRs in tht community s well s the perceptions community members hve for STRs. Either option, will require evlution to ensure tht the intended outcome hs been chieved. It my be tht STRs re not n existing problem, or tht STRs receive prise for providing lodging opportunities where no trditionl lodging options were vilble (etc.). ln community situtions like these, there my be no need to restrict use or incentive moderte use. SADIE DIi\IATALE 32

48 Pge 47 of 120 Normlize STRs s Residentil Activity {with Cvets) Another point of controversy nd debte is whether to clssify STRs s residentil or commercil use. This determintion will hve huge implictions in how STRs re used, nd who cn use them. On one end, STRs provides property owner with employment while techniclly using their home s smll, business venture (though not to the degree of hotel or motel). On the other hnd, STRs re locted in residencies, function residentilly (e.g. used for eting, sleeping, hnging out), nd the rentl units mintin their residentil chrcter. Normlizing STRs s residentil ctivity, with regultory cvets tht ensures property owners mintin the properties'residentil chrcter (see subsection, "Develop Approprite Regultory Stndrds") cn ensure tht those who use STRs modertely nd within legl prmeters cn continue to do so. The following outlines some court cses in which STRs were determined residentil ctivity: "Short-term rentls of lkefront house re not commercil use in violtion of residentil zoning Iws,for the purpose tht residentil referred to ctivities on the property nd not the owners'intent to mke profit, there ws never more thn on fmily occupying the house, nd the renters engged in residentil ctivities." o Siwinski v. Town of Ogden Dunes, Court of Appels of Indin fintermedite court], Decided Mrch 16,2o1o,9zz N.E.zd 75r. (.tudicildecision:62 PELzto,lndin.) Short-term rentl determined predomintely residentil for the resons tht "the property ws designed for use predomintely s residence, the site ws purchsed nd the home ws built for personl use, the intent ws to use the property s second home, the decision to llow short-term rentls ws mde to offset expenses nd to shre the outdoor experience with visitors, most of the rentl ctivity occurred during the summer months, [the property owners] used the property when possible." Further, "the receipt of income does not trnsform residentil use of property into commercil use" (Frny v. Bord of Equliztion). Finlly, the intent ws not to generte profit (s is the cse of hotels, motels, nd bed nd brekfsts) but to ssist with the cost of mintennce. o O'Neil v. Conejos County Bord of Commissions, Court of Appels of Colordo, Decided Mrch 9,2017. Piece of condominium declrtion "ffirming tht no business, trde, occuption or profession of ny kind shll be conducted, mintined or permitted on ny prt of the property ws not intended to restrict the right of ny condominium unit owner to rent or lese his condominium unit from time to time." ln ddition to restrictive covennts not being fvored in Missouri, "the covennt ws interpreted nrrowly in fvor of the free use of the propcrty nd tht nightly rcntls did not violtc thc R 3 multiple-fmily dwellings sttute." o Mullin v. Silvercreek Condominium Owner's, r95 S.W.3d 484 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006)r Still, depending on the politicl climte nd level of controversy in given community, limiting STRs to specific zones (e.g. mixed-use, neighborhood commercil, higher or lower density residentil res) my prove to be useful compromise or solution (lso see next subsection "Permit STRs in Premium Ares with Monitoring"). Further, in some situtions restrictive covennts (in Home Owners Associtions, for exmple) my view STRs s brech of rules nd lndlords my still prohibit their tennts from operting short-term rentls in the sme wy they my prohibit sublesing. Accordingly, some mngement of STRs cn occur outside of municipl control. SADIE DINATALE 33

49 Pge 48 of 120 Permit STRs in Premium Ares r,vith Monitoring lf community converstions come to the conclusion tht STRs re to be limited to certin res of community, consider permitting the use of STRs in premium res. ln this sense, premium res cn be considered res of city with bundnt nturl resources: plces tourists nd visitors flock to where STRs tend to be most prevlent. Allowing STRs in these res re in line with shring economy vlues. ln tht, more people re given ccess to homes in superior loctions. Still, s communities with these premium res (e.g. resort communities) re fcing greter chllenges thn non-resort communities, pying ttention to the number nd use of STRs in these res is importnt s llowing them without mngement my disrupt the chrcter of those neighborhoods (see next subsection, "Develop Approprite Regultory Stndrds"). Develop Approprite Regultory Stndrds ln considering STRs s residentil use, it is importnt to set specific stndrds on these units to ensure they re not overly burdensome to the neighborhood. For instnce, limiting guest cpcity to the fmily/household cpcity, quntifying the frequency nd durtion of visitor stys, nd fining property owners for creted nuisnces re some options for mintining the chrcter of neighborhoods. ln respects to the quntifiction of frequency nd durtion of visitors, one cn equte the number of dys the property is rented to the number of dys the property is owneroccupied. ln res with constrined housing vilbility, requiring tht property owners live in their dwelling unit for six to nine months out of the yer, for exmple, cn disincentive the hoteliztion of neighborhoods. Finlly, requiring tht STR units receive inspections should lso be minimum to promote the helth, sfety, nd wellbeing of both residents nd visitors. Inspections could include generl home inspection or fire inspection. Require Permit or l-icense Requiring STR opertes to register their units or get permit/license cn help communities sty on top of where these rentls re locted nd cn help mnge how mny there re. lt will lso llow communities to collect dt (iding in the chnce to mesure the benefits/costs tht STRs could hve on neighborhoods, hosts, nd/or residents). Collecting fees from these permits/licenses cn be low (solely used to cover the dministrtive cost of processing permits/licenses) or higher if excess revenue is needed for other inititives (STR eduction, outrech, inspection services or complint follow-up, etc.). Requiring STR opertors to register for business permit (s opposed to getting permit specilly designted for STRs) my lso prove to be less dministrtively burdensome. An exmple of lnguge for requiring short-term rentl Iicense is s follows: City of Bend (7.t6.o3o): "Annul Short-Term Rentl Operting License Required. No owner of property within the Bend City limits my dvertise, offer, operte, rent, or otherwise mke vilble or llow ny other person to mke vilble for occupncy or use short-term rentl without short-term rentl operting license. Advertise or offer includes through ny medi, whether written, electronic, web-bsed, digitl, mobile or otherwise. [Ord. N5-2239, zot5f" SADIE DINATALE 34

50 Pge 49 of 120 Require STR Opertors to Py Fees nd Txes Tourism often puts strin on services. Collecting fees nd txes should be used to mitigte negtive externlities of this ctivity. Fees, s mentioned briefly bove, should cover the cost of dministrtor time nd resources needed to regulte nd enforce STRs s well s cover outrech ctivities. Trnsient Iodging txes should be Ievied in ll communities using rte tht mkes sense for the community (e.g. higher if there re too mny STRs or lower if the community does not hve sufficient lodging opportunities/wnts to encourge STRs). There re lso precedents for lleviting costs for lower-income households tht my be impcted by these rtes dissimilrly; for instnce, fee exemption or reduced fee rte. Higher fee rtes for property owners with more thn one STR in single community my lso help to disincentive "hoteliztion."'o How should plnners nd policy mkers enforce short-term rentls? While not lljurisdictions in Oregon hve to del with enforcement issues, those tht do understnd tht enforcement of STR policies is difficult t best nd trditionl methods such s dministrtive cittions, fines, revoking permits, or court mndtes hve only been slightly effective overll in curbing code evsion. Still, opportunities for enforcement exist, however, they my not be in line with trditionl best prctices. For instnce, while more time intensive, providing outrech to community members is one opportunity to ensure tht residents nd possible hosts understnd their rights when it comes to STRs. Reching out to community members bout wht existing regultory frmeworks re nd wht they re intended to ccomplish cn help inform residents nd potentil hosts of "Wht's striking bout the shred economy is not the technology tht hs mde it possible, but the vst chnges it hs triggered in society." (Stn,2016). the stndrd operting procedures forthe re. Teching them of the negtive externlities (specific to the community) my help with complince. Additionlly, with ttcommunity" nd tttrust" s cornerstones of the shring economy, using these vlues to frme community discussions my lso prove to be more effective thn ddressing this ctivity from strictly legl nd economic gend. Outrech to educte opertors bout the hzrds of being n bsentee property owner nd the dnger of llowing visitors to sty longer thn 3o consecutive dys (e.g. risks visitors gining tennt's rights) should lso occur. Using regionl outrech methods my help esc dministrtivc burdcn, cspccilly in rcs with smller popultions. Alterntively, locl governments cn offset some of this outrech onto property owners by requiring them to rech out to their neighbors before registering their STRs (e.g. potentilly requesting neighbor pprovl or confirmtion tht hosts t lest spek to their neighbors bout their new venture). This option cn give property owners nd neighbors chnce to tlk 1o Recently, Pris triples its vcnt home tx to 50% to mitigte rtificil shortges in their housing stock. SADIE DINATALE 3'

51 Pge 50 of 120 bout concerns before the opportunity for nuisnces to occur rises. This will enble trust nd trnsprency. Along the lines of trust nd trnsprency, the shring economy hs become effective t selfregultion. ln generl, web-bsed pltforms tht utilize customer review nd rting systems cn llow property owners to be more selective of who they let into their homes nd neighborhoods. Agin, educting hosts in some of the dngers tht could occur through home-shring my mke the hosts more perceptive to these review/rting systems. Further, if these hosts hve previously tlked to their neighbors bout their primry concerns, hosts will be ble to red through potentil visitor's reviews to better select individuls less likely to crete the nuisnces sure to nnoy neighbors. ln summtion, it is difficult for governments to regulte something they do not hve complete control over. Using community members to encourge nd expect pproprite use of STRs s well s educting STR opertors on wht is suitble cn induce culture of self-regulted complince. The Need for Continuous Evlution Not just best prctice but necessity, jurisdictions should continue to monitor STRs in their community so tht pproprite evlution of their policies cn occur. Prticulrly, mny cities hve found their regultions, or lck thereof, to be neither effective nor ineffective, which mkes continued evlution tht much more importnt. Potentil opportunities to inugurte monitoring nd evlution into existing dministrtive nd plnning ctivities includes: inventorying STRs when prticipting in buildble lnds inventories or conducting housing needs ssessments, considering STRs when developing regionl plns or new mster plns (prticulrly for downtowns nd tourism-bsed districts), nd incorporting STRs into relevnt strtegic plns (e.g. Trvel Oregon) nd stte-wide tourism reserch. Further, using town hlls, neighborhood ssocition meetings, existing community newsletters, polls on governmentl Fcebook pges, nd the like cn stremline outrech ctivities just s esily s it cn ssist in guging community perspectives bout STRs. Longitudinl studies will be essentil to truly guge the effectiveness of STR policies. Future Reserch As other studies on the topic conclude, there is still much reserch needed regrding the topics of STRs nd the shring economy to understnd their impct on communities nd locl economies. The following questions were unble to be ddressed in this report but should be considered moving forwrd (see Tble 3.3): SADIE DINATALE l6

52 Pge 51 of 120 Tble 3.3. Opportunities for Continued Study Reserch questions Potentil Method(s) Potentil Dt Sources Do short-term rentls ffect the vilbility of longterm rentls, owner-occupied housing, or ffordble Regression Anlysis housing? If so, to wht extent? Americn Community Survey nd Housing Survey Dt Do short-term rentls ffect property vlues or inflte rentl costs? Wht is the lnd use efficiency of short-term rentls vs. hotel/mote I ccomodtions? ln llowing STRs to support dditionl tourism, do the benefits derived from n increse in tourism outweigh the costs of incresed tourism? How cn web-bsed, shring economy businesses, governments, nd community members collborte in the response to short-term rentls? How do community members perceive short-term rentls in their communityl To wht extent do community members vlue homeshring? ln wht wys do vlues differ mongst vrious groups? Regression Anlysis Geogrphic I nformtion Systems; Sttic nd Dynmic Anlysis Cost-Benefit Anlysis Surveys, lnterviews, Focus Groups Surveys (e.g. chi-squre), lnterviews, Focus Groups Surveys (e.g, chi-squre), lnterviews, Focus Groups Americn Community Survey nd Housing Survey Dt Historicl rtes of lnd consumption, Residentil nd ccomodtion sector employment growth rtes/trends of lnd utiliztion, Chrcteristics of lnd nd tx lot informtion Government spending nd tx revenue; Economic, socil, nd envi ronmentl i ndictors Residents, Businesses within the ccomodtion sector, El ected officils, Government representtives, Shri ng economy pltforms Residents, Businesses within the ccomodtion sector, Elected officils Residents nd Community members Vr'ht re the motives of property owners who operte short-term rentl(s)? How do motives rnk mongst ech other? Surveys, lnterviews, Focus Groups Short-term rentl opertors Source: DiNtle, Sdie, (2017). Assessing nd Responding to Short-Term Rentls in Oregon: Enbling the Benefits of the Shring Economy. Additionlly, mny survey responded indicted the following summrized tools would be helpful for them to better respond to STRsll: r Construction of model code or smple ordinncel2 r Esierccess LuTrrrsierrt LudgirrgTx rolls Lo esl.blislr wlrelherstrs exist in certin loctions or re contributing txes. Access to housing dt (e.g. sptil dt of housing stock). Funding to mend lnd use codes " Responding to Short-Term Rentls in Oregon Survey, n-q24,2c17. 1']Two potentil smple codes re locted here: Mny cities in Oregon hve lso dopted codes tht could be used s resource. When developing code lnguge, looking t smples from rnge of comprble jurisdictions is importnt. SI\DIE DINATALE }7

53 Pge 52 of 120 Chpter 4: Policy Recommendtions The purpose of this chpter is not to recommend precise recipe for how vrious communities should mnge STRs; this would be inefficient given ll the nunces between cities. Rther, this chpter presents generl recommendtions for cities (with popultions less thn roo,ooo), regions, nd Oregon. Lstly, delineted in typology (bsed-off previously cited best prctice) re specific regultory options tht communities cn consider. Regu ltory Recommendtions The following sections brek recommendtions into minimum requirements nd ncillry requirements for cities. Next, I provide recommendtions for regions nd the Stte. Minimum Regultory Recommendtions for All Cities Whether city hs STRs or not, communities should estblish the following regultions, even s prec utionry mesure: Leglly define STRs s "short-term rentls" nd estblish fir frequency of use stndrd tht is complimentry of regionl stndrds. 2 Codify regultions in locl ordinnce. lmpose guest cpcity Iimit nd require inspections 3. Levy trnsient lodging tx (if not imposed t the county level). 4. Require tht STR opertors register their unit(s) on n nnul bsis. Ancillry Regultory Recommendtion with Thresholds for Cities Vritions in number nd concentrtion of STRs should influence policy choices. The following recommendtions provide thresholds for ncillry regultions s strting point. ln tht, thresholds my vry between communities. Restrict (cp/limit) STRs or incentivize moderte use if STRs ccount for more thn 4% of totl housing stock. 2. lmpose cluse tht revokes STR permit for properties tht receive more thn five nuisnce complints in clendr yer. 3. Limit STRs in proximity to other STRs (deconcentrte) when city-wide/re-specific nuisnce complints exceed z5 complints in clendr yer. Communities should estblish fir distnce (".9. So to 20o feet buffer between STRs), weigh equity implictions, nd reevlute buffer distnce every two to five yers.. Before estblishing buffer distnce, cities should increse regultory stndrds nd evlute whether nuisnce complints reduce (e.g. estblishing minimum prking stndrds my mitigte prking complints). SADIE DINATALE 3B

54 Pge 53 of 120 Recommendtions {or Counties nd Regions Smller jurisdictions my hve difficulties mnging STRs. Tht sid, counties/regions should help fcilitte proper mngement of STRs. Levy trnsient lodging tx t the county level if brriers exist for cities to impose their own (due to popultion size, low prevlence of STRs in individul communities, dministrtive limittions, etc.). z. Estblish regionl representtive or liison to ttend Shring Economy Committee meetings (see first "Recommendtion for Oregon"). Regionl liisons should represent multiple counties. Recornmendtions f or Oregcn Oregon cn nd should become leder in the mngement of STRs. This will require the stte to become leder in shring economy ffirs. Estblish Shring Economy Committee to fcilitte reserch on the shring economy generlly (to include nlysis of STR trends) nd to ssist communities cross the stte del with new issues. The objective of this committee should be one in support of shring economy ctivities. 2. Hire stte employee to work directly in shring economy ffirs. Responsibilities should include: o Anlyze shring economy trends cross the stte, country, nd globe o Communicte inititives, informtion, nd best prctices to governments cross tlre stte o Provide government ssistnce in STR mngement o Collborte with shring-economy pltforms o Collect dt o Prticipte in globl shring economy networks o Coordinte stte Shring Economy Committee meetings, trinings, nd workshops o Lunch policy demonstrtion studies to pilot regultory frmeworks nd options l. Mintin neutrl Trnsient Lodging Tx t t.8% to llow regions nd cities to use their tx rtes to mnge STR growth. 4. Estblish pool of funding to help smll communities mend lnd use ordinnces for STRs. SADIE DIi\ATAI-I ]L)

55 Pge 54 of 120 t-egisltive Approches: A Typo!ogy fon 5mller Jurisdictions The following policy options represent common legisltive pproches for smller jurisdictions. Communities must consider the vibility of ech pproch/regultory option within context of their community. A community my dopt some or none of these options. "Grde," intends to provide' strting point for community converstion round equitbility of regultory frmeworks. Communities re encourged to develop their own metrics or expnd the following. Tble 4.t. Legisltion Approches nd Regultory Options [egisltive Regultory Options Equity Considertion Grde Definitions Vction Rentl Trnsient Rentl Short-Term Beltl of Use Unspecified Less thn 183 dys in clendryer; Less thn 30 consecutive dys Less thn 90 dys in clendryer; Less thn 30 consecutive dys Less thn 30 dys in clendr yer t-istingtypes Accessory/Secondry Dwelling Enti re House/Aprtment Shred/Privte Room Not n ll-encompssing term; ssumes use is tourism-bsed only lnclusive term. More inclusive term nd observed globlly. Not specifying the number of dys STRs cn be reserved for could crete hoteliztion For communities unchllenged by housing vilbility, the use of second homes s STRs my be cceptble, for others, this could crete rtificil housing supply constrints. Allowing STRs to be reserved for totl of 3 months in clendr yer enbles property owners who my trvel (or function with more nomdic lifestyle) to get better use out of their primry properties while wy. More commonly used by locl governments s wy to blnce the benefits nd negtive externlities of STRs while continuing to lern from nd evolve with the shring economy. Allowing STRs in ADUs cn llow property owners to use their lots more efficiently. However, for communities with housing supply constrints, this my inhibit long-term housing options. STRs s entire homes nd prtments re efficient but frequent use could generte rtificil housing shortges in some communities. Enbling STRs s shred/privte rooms cn mke it esier for property owners to use their excess ffiil;$ffinffi*triffiqli$ii*;iidfffirf'ffifr*;$lffistiif,{6]w,:ir.tl"1$*#,:3ffi SAD [ DINATALI ffiryiil:{$?'ffl,li) Poor Good Best Poor to Adequte Adequte Good Good Adequte Good Best

56 Pge 55 of 120 Legisltive es Cp/timit Regultory Options STRs in Proxirnity to Another the Number of STRs in City the Number of STRs in Neighborhool or District Rentls per Property Owner Lnd Use Clsses Bnning Outr ght Permit Outrieht Permit in Some Districts/Zones Higher Fee Rt-. for Second Permit or More Reduced Fee Rte Property Owner's Pri mry Residence Fee Exemptions Equity Considertion Mitigte nuisnce issues nd ensures certin res of community does not become overrun by STRs. Limiting STRs llows benefits to be reped nd greter flexibility. Using lottery system or witing list cn promote firness. Allows for more ccurte nd fir mngement of STRs in res tht re more hevily influenced by STRs thn others. Using lottery system or witing list cn promote firness. Reduces thret of hoteliztion in neighborhoods nd better ensures n dequte supply of housing for residents. Bnning outright will likely led to policy evsion nd missing out on the mny benefits the shring economy brings. Mny communities my find it cceptble to llow STRs outright s long s pproprite regultory stndrds mitigte concerns nd promote firness' Being selective of where STRs re ble to locte is importnt for most communities where STRs re creting issues. A cost-benefit nlysis weighing the benefits/drwbcks of shring economy ctivities in vrious res is necessry to mke informed decisions on behlf of the entire communi Mking STR opertors py higher rtes for STR permits, fter their initil permit, cn discourge property owners from operting more thn one STR in given community Allowing reduced fres forstrs in opertor's primry home cn discourge people from purchsing residentil units solely forthe purpose of operting STRs. Exempting residents experiencing finncil hrdship from fee requirements cn ensure for Hrdship tht lower-income residents cn still operte STR leglly to ern extr income, if they wnt. Use for ess thn L0 dys in Exempting opertors from permit fees who operte STRs infrequently cn ensure clendr residents re not finncill discou d from use their rties more efficientl Grde Good Good Good Best Poor Good Best Good 3est 3est 3est SADII DINAIALE J1

57 Pge 56 of 120 Legisltive Regultory Options Equity Considertion Grde Conditionl Use Permit Business License Short-Term Rentl License No Trnsient Lodging Tx Trnsient Lodging Tx lmposed by County Trnsient Lodging Tx lmposed by City No Registrtion Renewl Every 3to 5Yers Annul Renewl No Review Process Site/Design Review Neighbor Consent Pe rformnce/be hvior Mesures Helth, Fire, Building ctions High rtes of stndrd conditionl use permits my reduce STRs finncil vibility discourging use, which my or my not be the intention. For moderte users this my induce concerns over firness. Requiring STR opertors to get business license cn stremline dministrtive efforts A seprte license, specificlly for short-term rentls, my llow more flexibility in treti this cti nd in setti fee rtes t more levels For some communities, levying TLT my discourge STRs in res where STRs'other benefits of STRs my outweigh the dditionl fiscl revenue. Counties where ggregted STRs in ech city re too low to be dministrtively efficient to levy t city level, my benefit from tx levied t regionl level. lmposing trnsient tx mintins firness cross the ccommodtion sector. Tourists put strin on city seryices nd cities should levy tx to offset finncil burden on residents. lmposing trnsient tx mintins firness cross the ccommodtion sector. Not requiring STRs to register my hve long-term effects on the chrcter of neighborhoods, on housing vilbility or ffordbility, nd my mke enforcement more difficult. Ensures process is not overly burdensome but less frequent monitoring my crete opportunities for policy evsion nd neighborhood nuisnces. Most te to trck STRs on bsis. Not hving ny kind of review process my negtively influence the helth, sfety, or we I I bei ng of residents or the chrcter of neighborhoods. While necessry depending on other regultory options selected (e,g. conditionl use permit) for other communities, site/design review process my be overly burdensome to both stff nd potentil STR opertors. Some form of consent process with neighbors (not officil hering) cn improve neighborhood reltionships nd increse trnsprency. Some nuisnce issues my be mitigted with open dilogue. Policies tht revoke STR privileges for nuisnce issues or complints is useful cluse to ensure neighbors re not negtively impcted by STRs in nerby properties. More of necessity, there should be some checks nd blnces to ensure tht STR sreu to code, ensuri the of visitors. Adequte to Good Good Best Poor to Adequte Good Good Poor Adequte Good Poor Adequte to Good Good Good Best SADII DINATALE A)

58 Pge 57 of 120 Stndrds [egisltive Regultory Options Minimum Prking Requirements Vehicle Limits Minimum Aesthetic Code Requirernents Proof of Owner-Occupncy Guest Cpcity Equity Considertion Requiring tht STR opertors dhere to prking requirements my mitigte nuisnce issues in some res or be unnecessry nd overly burdensome in others. Limiting guest vehicles cn mitigte neighborhood concerns nd nuisnce issues' Some esthetic requirements (e.g, limiting signge) cn mitigte degrdtion of neighborhood chrcter in primrily residentil res. Requiring property owner to use their property for certin number of dys out of clendr yer cn discourge bsentee property owners nd hoteliztion. Mintining guest cpcity t level of fmily/household cn mitigte nuisnce issues nd ensure tht STRs in trditionlly, residentil res re not overly disruptive to the existing chrcter net Grde Poorto Adequte Good Good Best Best Source: lnformtion ws derived from Appendix A nd B of this report s well s from the Responding to Short-Term Rentls in Oregon Survey ;iadle DINATALI ;11

59 Pge 58 of 120 Appendix A: Literture Review This chpter orgnizes findings of existing studies nd current literture on the topic of short-term rentls. lmpct of Short-Term Rentls STRs re understood to impct, or potentilly impct the cost nd vilbility of housing, locl economies, nd the shring economy generlly. lmpct on Housing A scn of pplicble literture quickly returns results of short-term rentls (STRs) impct on housing. First however, most reports comment on the fct tht there re very cler limittions in the vilbility of dt to fully understnd the impct STRs hve on housing mrkets or housing stock (ECONorthwest 2016, Rees Consulting 2016, nd ccessorydwellings.org zor6). Specultion nd inherent ssumptions re widespred, though, cdemics nd prctitioners re eger to Iern bout the true effects. Being tht there is no stndrd or greed upon definition for STRs, the bility to drw cler conclusions on cuslity cross spce becomes especilly difficult (ECONorthwest, 2016). ln study tht nlyzed the impct tht HomeAwy rentls hd in Settle, it ws found tht STRs did not hve significnt impct on home vlues, tht properties were generlly not on the STR mrket for long, nd tht STRs were generlly locted in trditionlly higher income res (ECONorthwest zot6). Yet, in study of STRs in New York City nd New Orlens, STRs were ssocited with incresed property vlues (Shepprd, et l. zot6 nd Kindel, et l. zot6).thus, we cn conclude tht STRs' impct on housing will differ between geogrphic regions nd locl economy types. Some reports looked t the impct STRs hd on specific housing types. ln white pper looking t four cities in Colordo, with popultions under 7,ooo, it ws found tht STRs did led to the reduction of homes nd bedrooms previously used by employees incresing the demnd for workforce housing nd reducing its supply (Rees Consulting zor6). Another nlysis showed tht in Portlnd, bnning short-term ccessory dwelling unit rentls did not increse long-term ccessory dwelling rentls (ccessorydwellings.org zor6). Economie lmpets lmpcts to the Government nd Locl Economies: Short-term rentls hve the potentilly to positively ffect municiplities through production of fiscl revenue. ln report ssessing the impct of STRs in Sn Diego, Los Angeles, Monterey County, Snt Brbr, nd St. Joseph (Michign) it ws found tht txing the STR industry genertes substntil revenue for the municiplity nd it does support job growth (NUSI zot5; TXP, lnc. zot4; nd TXP, lnc. zor5). ln ddition, literture ttests tht "with proper regultion nd enforcement, citizens nd communities cn benefit from the incresed tourism" tht short-term rentls bring (Binzer, zo't7). lmpcts to Short-Term Rentl Hosts: A primry reson property owners operte STRs is the income opertors' cn ern: Still, in study of HomeAwy rentls in Settle, ECONorthwest found tht STRs did not generte significnt incomes for owners (zot6) -potentilly unveiling other vlue-drivers for operting STRs beside purely economic gins. For instnce, socil nd sustinbility benefits my Si\DIE DINATAL[ 44

60 Pge 59 of 120 lso motivte property owners to continue operting these rentls. Nevertheless, in n ssessment of Airbnb hosts, it ws found tht the nnul expected profit is pproximtely $zo,ooo, but "'hndsoff'airbnb hosts cn expect occupncy rtes (nd revenue) t lest 15% lower" thn more involved hosts (Wllce, zot6). lmpcts to Businesses within the Accommodtion Sector: Despite Ioclized economic benefits, the STR industry cn disrupt forml industries in the ccommodtion sector by ttrcting visitors wy from conventionl Iodging nd ccommodtion compnies (Guttentg 2013, Fng zot5). This disruption becomes excerbted in tht mny STRs mrketed through web-bsed pltforms re often illegl (e.g. being operted without license/permit, without pying proper txesffees, or without hving proper inspections). This gives trditionl, regulted lodging businesses n economic disdvntge (Guttentg zor3). Continued studies evluting occupncy rtes, revenues per vilble room, rtes of use nd rentl price, estimted non-lodging spending from short-term renters, nd estimtes on potentil revenue ernings for municiplities will ssist in the development of knowledge in this re (NUSI zot5). lmpet on Shring Eecnomy STRs often operte by property owners lesing their unused spce to tourists nd visitors. We chrcterize ctivities s shring economy ctivities when they use distribution process to blnce the vilbility of resources nd needs of consumers (Dunoriene, et l. zot5). the wys in which STRs influence the shring economy is still open to interprettion however. I speculte tht growth of STRs offered through web-bsed pltforms indictes tht there is t lest dditionl cpcity in existing housing stock nd tht these property owners re willing to shre their excess spce in exchnge for monetry compenstion (Ellen zot5). Outside of this relity, debte bout whether home shring, through web-bsed pltforms, negtively or positively influences the shring economy finds rnge of perspectives. ln theoreticl debtes, policy mkers hve considered dpting the Airbnb home-shring model to house lower income individuls s new form of housing ssistnce (Ellen zot5). The ide tht people re interested in providing ccess to their spce to strngers, initites the converstion tht shring economy ctivities cn be operted in mny cpcities (outside of corporte co-options), providing different socil nd economic benefits therein (Vtrtin 2015). STR hosts cn lso rep economic benefits by prticipting in the shring economy, reinforcing their desire to prticipte in tht economy. Specificlly, hosts cn distribute their ssets to supplement their income which hs the dded benefit of mterilizing the collbortive use of resources (Lzrouiu zot4, Dunoriene, et l. zor5). Socil impcts re relized from public reltions perspectives in which, the incrementl shift towrds home-shring "hs engendered visions of renewed forms of collective urbn life" involving sustinbility, symbolic interction, nd communiction tht empowers trust (Gregory et l. zot6). Other perspectives debte how STRs nd home-shring through web-bsed pltforms bring detrimentl impcts on the shring economy, or t lest diminish its reputtion. For instnce, intermediry businesses tht "provide the infrstructure necessry to sustin the shring community" (Gregory et l. zot6) often enbles, or intensifies, the evsion of locl lws nd I egul[ior rs (ltrter irr zo t6). These busirresses cn lso displce conrpnies tht re regulted, nd often, do not hold themselves ccountble to the negtive externlities their business models cn crete (lnterin zot6). SADIE DIi\]ATALI 4t

61 Pge 60 of 120 Summry of lmpcts of Short-Term Rentls There is Iimited dt on the impct tht short-term rentls hve on governments nd locl economies, hosts nd residents, nd ccommodtion sector businesses. Certinly, however, positive nd negtive impcts will vry cross spce nd time (prticulrly in regrds to housing supply nd ffordbility). Additionlly, STRs hve nd will likely continue to disrupt trditionl, lodging options but likely will not replce these businesses ltogether. ln generl, there re lso mixed perceptions bout how home shring will ffect the shring economy t lrge which hs creted dichotomy round the topic (expected to remin until more reserch cn occur). Short-Term Rentl Policy This section first discusses STR policy frmeworks nd the impct they cn hve. Pr:licy Approches lntegrting STRs into the forml sector through regultions nd enforcement hs been cited s n importnt next step to correct some of the negtive impcts of STRs (Guttentg zor3). However, policy mkers continue to grpple with the rtionles, process, nd prctices of how to best regulte STRs. ln time of economic recession, mny wonder if it is beneficil to regulte the STR mrket t ll-in the chnce it inhibits homeowners from mking ends meet on their mortgges or housing pyments (Gottlieb zot3). In generl, however, the literture seems to gree on the fct tht STRs should be regulted in some fshion, the extent to which is uncler nd controversil (Cottlieb zor3, Goodmn zot6, nd Hood River County zot6). There ppers to be no best wy to regulte the STR mrket tht fits the needs of ll communities cross spce. One report suggested three-prt solution: 't. Lunch stndrd of sfety nd ccountbility (strengthening nuisnce lws, ensuring hosts hve pproprite insurnce, etc.); 2. Move pst yes or no debte on short-term rentls (consider the nunces of individul communities nd tilor regultions to those nunces); nd 3. Enforce wht is on the ground nd online (to cut down on opportunities to evde lws) (Goodmn zot6). Another report rticulted severl lterntives: develop public nuisnce btement ordinnces, bn short-term rentls outright, enct time restrictions (i.e. llowing short-term rentls for period of 3o dys or less), or enct performnce bsed stndrds (Gottlieb zor3). The Americn Plnning Assocition suggests tht jurisdictions require licenses, fees nd txes, nd insurnce; they lso suggest consistency with their lnd use controls nd to determine whether inspections re necessry (Sullivn, zott). tn guidebook on the equitble regultion of short-term rentls, suggestions include cler definitions, ctive record keeping, protections for housing (supply nd ffordbility), protections for guests, procedures for oversight, protections for neighborhood preservtion, nd imposition of txes (Sustinble Economies Lw Center zot6). Others rgue tht STRs, s prt of the shring economy, need specil or "innovtive" regultory tretments 'rprecisely becuse the business model is so new" (ftz zor5). SADIE DINATALF. 46

62 Pge 61 of 120 Trnsient!-odging Tx Trnsient lodging txes (TLT) re locl option tx levied on lodging fcilities (hotels, motels, bed nd brekfsts, etc.). While ll jurisdictions do not levy tx of this kind, "txing tourism is n ppeling option for governments fcing budgetry constrints nd pressures to decrese relince on vriety of txes" (Gooroochurn nd Sinclir zoo5). For instnce, txes levied to hotels offset burden onto tourists, which is especilly dvntgeous in res with "superior or unique nturl resources" s to "cpture the 'rent' of these resources through txtion" (Oklnd nd Test n.d.). TLTs, nd other tourism txes, re further considered efficient reltive to txing other sectors (Gooroochurn nd Sinclir,zoo5). fl-fs re useful to discourge certin businesses, curb negtive impcts of certin businesses, or improve firness (recover service costs from those who benefit from those services) (Oklnd nd Test n.d.). Poliey lmpcts Pros nd cons exist for ll routes nd systems of regultion. Overrchingly, we re not fully wre of the impcts lternte policies will hve on residents, the locl economy, or housing in the long-term. ln jurisdictions where STR policies re lredy estblished, we still lck complete wreness on the ffect short-term rentls hve on residents (Hood River County zot6). Accordingly, becuse the regultion of STR could ffects community members differently, developing policies becomes chllenge nd discussion of equitbility. Thus, communities "should rrive t n pproprite nd equitble policy through open dilogue with the diversity of stkeholders involved" (Sustinble Economies Lw Center zot6). Summry of lrnpcts of Policy nd Regultion The estblishment of policies for STRs in communities cross the country is reltively new. Policies imposed cn nd likely will disproportionlly ffect residents. Thus, it is importnt to estblish rules in ccordnce with best prctices nd community converstions. As follow-up to regultions imposed, communities should evlution the impct their policies hve hd on residents, neighborhoods, the economy, nd housing. Communities should modify policies when deemed necessry. Summry Short-term rentls refer to housing units lesed or rented for less thn 3o dys. lt is n rrngement tht involves the trde of the temporry, but not future use, of full or prtil housing unit (Flth r98o). STRs cn provide benefits nd/or costs to communities (which will vry cross time nd spce), but pproprite regultions cn mnge these impcts. The concept mp on the following pge visully displys the connection between STR subtopics. S,T\DiE DINATALE 47

63 Pge 62 of 120 Concept Mp S;hcpprrdr ct :lt:oo6 Rres (onruhingr:*ri Kindcl, etl, lori E{OHerth*..er4:orfi Acrcrrorydnrcllin hng"orgb 0n Housing lrnpcts Policy On Shring Economy 5hort-Terrn Rentls bvdhcq *65 THF' [rr, :oq rnd :er 5 HUSI, =or5 firttene&:*ri F:rrg:.+r5 E{0ltrthr*rr$ lr6 Einrrr,:ori 0n Lscl Ecsnomies hlercin:or5 Lurouir,r:.*r+ lnterirt ro16 Enegory et l, :o16 Eller4:or5 Drunoricne.r rt rll :o.t5 Approches Sr,rtlin:bh Ecnorniec L.erff CEnlEr' :tr16 Sulliv:n,:o.rz Ohlxrd, et :lt nd" Rrt:.sr5 Hosd Rivcr fermti':tri6 fiutrcftrgr:nr3 fiottle\:or3 6ooroo*hurn, et :lr :oo5 Eoodm:nr:o,rf Effecis Hod Firrer {unty, :o16 Ert:in -i'lc Eoonorri*r Lr.' Cerrter, :+r 6 SADIE DiNATALI 48

64 Pge 63 of 120 Appendix B: Cse Studies This ppendix conveys key findings on to Oregon cities, selected s cse studies (see Tble C.r). Cse studies re used to delve into the detils of STRS in smller cities (cities with <too,ooo people). Tble B.t. Selected Cse Studies with Cse Studies Mnznit Joseph Rockwy Bech Depoe By Si ste rs Seside Hood River Lincoln City Ashlnd Bend Totl Totl City Size City Size Costl Region ltion Clss Clss nd 426 1,053 L,227 t,877 2,596 6,483 7,4t2 8,386 29,556 81,780 L40., Less thn 1,000 t,000to 5,000 1,000 to 5,000 1,@0to 5,000 1,000 to 5,000 5,001 to 20,000 5,001 to 20,000 5,001 to 20,000 20,0001 to 50,000 5Q@1to 100,000 North Cost Northest Oregon North Cost North Cost CentrlOregon North Cost Centrl Oregon North Cost Southern Oregon CentrlOregon Source: Popultion ws derived from the Americn Community Survey, 5-yer estimtes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Cse studies were chosen s they possess r) higher levels of Airbnbs (totl number) s compred to other Oregon cities nd/or z) they possess high percentge of Airbnbs s compred to the community's totl housing units. All cse studies rnk within the top z5 cities in either of those two ctegories; most cse studies (except Ashlnd nd Joseph) rnk within the top z5 cities of both ctegories. The cse studies chosen represent +9% of the Airbnbs in cities under loo,ooo nd zz% of the Airbnbs in ll Oregon cities. These to cities generte pproximtely $S+.8 million nnully which is 66% of ll revenue generted from Airbnbs in cities under loo,ooo nd 35% of the revenue generted from Airbnbs in lloregon cities. SADIE DINA'TALE 49

65 Pge 64 of 120 J4 o lt E ut IE tr o l- o o- o L o- b0.e vt J!- rj ll IA.cr tr.cr.b o L 0).cl E z co CL t! = o % o ".J" "o". oo o o oo o oo o OO 9. o o oo o 4 ooo 4 o oo ct e v E o -s-.r!ct4dc 6d=dc o H - ro o!r OA o f s 'b. o n^ ^ ovvo "^o+ rf = ooo6o^o oo o " i:',:",:,,,1 s.."f o t. l \J tr ut d> 'i{ 6c :o d-s O -d >.! qi J_ 'G= qql *3 96 i -q 3+ \o.9 qr -c\ t-o oej o.t AU (o= oc -J o(r tr'b LC o6 NS n6 NC E c.r oi?c u0j '- Cr F ^E f, s o-.: oo \ e8i LAq <: q c '-Q o c.\.l:< {t or 3Eo -ot dpp r. cjl -:i IA d. F tn -o UI Ug U1ll cc L =ve,i 5 t\! t.go : -c5 G/..1 {nb,; U rse# re I&UJ h;q trul FHOO FrJ(U LA fide :P o\ '6 Ee E- ct e5 F E 5^ -c ul s8 o- o, 6o Eg 9p^ 9F :x 6E.o= c.9^ 6S =o 5_ S9 o A tn.g E J ttt o vt (! I >RN>RxXsssXs cor.o@o)=lnr\lj)=oo $otmo(osfolt\f\l OOO f)fitio)c\noon f'.o)@c')n0osfnoocn g.i c.i d F.: Fi '.i -i ri F sftn$slcofntnrncnrj1 d {,/} {,/} {.4 1t} <tt {J} lrt <U> <rt V\ NOrOrslLnOrmrnNFr cnlj)stlj)lr)sl FN(OOO)(nrOOOcn 6lFl(Od) d!o'.icri!o'-i6l's F-l (.i1 -i (oont\tcoto(onmro tnnoo+ofn$nstrn LnooNdtn6(-!Nooo'l d.i-ifi -ioo'.idc.l' NOO E'n -L> ds.hg> =-Y=(o *; ee se E ifig H o #,.r8 G;U -t'q it6- H6=;O,.;Ei ltz=<.;o-;i><; -q {d;-e<o E=+oPd 1-<-nNO=v{,:oo'E'':oo >d _ ::9 N L U '. 6 N tee-qo:4-n oqn<co6-q l'- oc\l o qj o" o - c o r; o N o N j OJ \h =.e c5 E E (J o co U qj E i o rj) U J z 5 u

66 Pge 65 of 120 Newly creted STRs in our cse study cities continues to grow. Future, longitudinl studies will helpful to understnd how recent policies effect the mount of STRs entering the mrket in these communities. Figure B.4. Percent Chnge of Newly Creted Short-Term Rentls, 2014 to 2o16 8+o% 65o% 522% 273% z6z% 22j% t9o% 1o7% 95% I 1g% M nznit Depoe Sisters Ashlnd Bend By Joseph Li ncol n City Seside Rockwy Be ch Hood Rive r Source: AirDnA Property Dt, Retrieved2OTT. ln the following cse study cities, STR growth is incresing t fster rte thn totl housing units re. ln some of these communities, household formtion is lso incresing t fster rte thn the construction of new housing units, indicting housing supply constrints (Bend, Depoe By, Joseph, nd Mnznit). Tble B. lndiction of Possible Constrints Cities in Oregon Ashlnd Bend Depoe By Hood River.Joseph Lincoln City Mnznit Rockwy Bech Seside 5istcrs Totl Household Formtions 2OL Chnge 9,339 9,M6 To/ 31,596 33,396 60/ O 4Lo/ 2,7& 3,005 9% o/o 3,831 3,876 LoA o/ t60/6 2,839 2,897 2% 7G5 D49 249{ Vction/SesonU Occsionl Use Housing Vcncy Housing Units chnse OtS Chnge 29L t,224 43r ,432 7,062 t,026 1, r7 L,4T ,L L, t8v 9o/o t6% 3% 27o/o -43o/o 4go/o -6% 35% -25% 1079$ 10,230 35,510 7,r25 3,2t4 s56 s,73l 7,320!7s 4,428 9s6 ro,372 36,579 r,469 3, ,439 7,263 2,105 4,602 L,33L s3,064 55,737 s% 9,060 L0,r70 L2% il,920 68,259 s% 1% 3o/o 3!o/o 9% 7o/o L2% -4% 2@/o 4o/o 39% Short-Term Rentls I2l 6 tzs L34 L ?7 L, % 1466/o 200% 83o/o 650% 53o/o I40% 670/o 90o/o % % Source: AirDnA Property Dt. Retrieved U.S. Census, Americn Community Survey, 2010 nd 2015 SADIE DINAIALT 51

67 Pge 66 of 120 The following tble shows tht in some situtions, property owners cn generte more nnul revenue off STRs thn they could off stndrd long-term rentl units. This suggests tht in resort communities, there my be more of motive for property owners to operte STRs. Tble 8.6. lndiction of Competition between Short nd Long-Term Hous ing Cities in Oregon Averge Annul Revenue (STRs) Mx of Annnul Revenue (STRs) Averge Annulized Rent (ACS) Ashlnd Bend Depoe By Hood River Joseph Lincoln City Mnznit Rockwy Bech Seside 58,309 s14,801 s13,866 $7,s37 5L7,U6 sl2,265 $16,105 S15,925 S16, ,876 5Ls7,773 S59, ,215 sil,836 str7,25o S9o,051 S98,481 Si-98,425 sr2,456 $t2, ,264 S13,488 57,980 $10,080 SLo,548 58,gte ito,7o4 Sisters s9,196 S+s,ooo Srz,3r2 Totl 513,602 S198,42s StL,tL2 Averge Annulized Mortgge (ACS) Source: AirDnA Property Dt, Retrieved U.S. Census, Americn Community Survey, 2010 nd s2o,2o8 518,648 s18,636 S2o, ,232 s18, ,432 s14ss6 S19,356 S19,068 s1&7s6 SADIE DINATALE..2

68 Pge 67 of 120 Tble B.7. Airbnbs Orgnized by Listing Type nd Dys Reserved Entire Shred room Totl Less thn 30 Dys 34% 2L% 0A% 55o/o 30 to 90 Dys L3o/o 4% L7% 9L to 180 Dys L7o/o 5% 22% 181 or More 6o/o L% 7% Less thn 30 Dys 35o/o 9% o.t% 45% 30 to 90 Dys 29% 5% o.o% 34o/o 9L to 180 Dys 13% 3% O.U/o t6o/o 181 or More 4% 2% 6% Less thn 30 Dys 48% 4% s2% 30 to 90 Dys 24% 24% 91 to 180 Dys 20o/o T% 2L% 18L or More 3% 3% Less thn 30 Dys 32% 17% 4% s2% 30 to 90 Dys I9o/o 6% 25% 91- to 180 Dys 1r% 7% 17% 1.81 or More 4% L% 3% Less thn 30 Dys L7% 3% 27% 30 to 90 Dys 34% 3% 38o/o 91 to 180 Dys 29% 3% 2o/o 34% 181 or More 7% Less thn 30 Dys 49% 2% 5I% 30 to 90 Dys 26% L% 27o/o 9L to L80 Dys 77o/o 2o/o L9% 18L or More 2% L% 3% Less thn 30 Dys 38% 5% 42o/o 30 to 90 Dys 29% 5o/o 34o/o 91 to 180 Dys 20% 20% 181 or More 4% 4% Less thn 30 Dys 30 to 90 Dys 91, to 180 Dys 181 or More Scosidc Less thn 30 Dys 30 to 90 Dys 9L to 180 Dys 181 or More 34% 24%?8% 8% 2% t%?o/" t% % 26% 16% 7% 6% 3% L% o% L% 0.2o/o 0.5% 37o/o 25o/o lcp/o 8% /o 29o/o t8% Less thn 30 Dys 30 to 90 Dys 9L to 180 Dys 181 Dvs or More Totl 33% 23% $% 2% 15% 8% 3% 1% 3, ,Ot3 48% 32o/o 78o/o 3% SADIE DINATALE t3

69 Pge 68 of 120 Legisltive Approches Tble c.4. Cse Cse Study Defined Adopted Requirements & Stndrds lndiction of Effectiveness Ordinnce Link TA nd ATA Reouirements: Conditionl Use Permi! Subject to Site Design Review; Subject to i nspection by fi re dep rtment nd Jckson County Helth Deprtment; City business license; Register for nd py trnsient occupncy tx Ashlnd Trvel ers' Accommodtions (TA) or Accessory Trvelers' Accommodtions (ATA), for one or more occsions for period less thn 30 consecutive dys 2015 TA St nd rds: Locted withi n 200 feet of boul ev rd, venue, or neighborhood collector; Property must be primry residence ofthe business-owner or person entered into lese greement with the property owner permitting use of property for the ccommodtion; Pri m ry res i dent on site must be 20 ye rs ol d; Mi ni mum I ot nd GSF stndrds; Prking stndrd (one off-street prking spce per ccommodti on nd bus i ness-owner's unit must hve two p rki ng s pces) Somewht Effective htto:// r.us/slb/files/amc Ch nt lr..lrrrpntn.lf {Section } ATA St nd rds : Li mit to one ccommodti on unit per property (no more thn two bedrooms with two people per room); No signs; Property must hve two off-street prking spces; Guest vehicles must not exceed one; Me I s nd kitchen cooki ng fci I ities re not permitted Bend Use of dwel I ing unit by ny person or group of persons entitled to occupy for rent for period of less thn 30 consecutive dys 2406, Updted 20Ls Short term rent I permit Subject to rwi ew dependent on locti on nd dys vilble; Annul opertion license; Concentrtion limits (250 feet between properties); Less thn 30 dys nd owner-occupied llows exemption from concentrtion limits; Occupncy limited to two persons per bedroom plus two dditionl people; One prking spce per bedroom; Subjectto inspection Very Effective to i Somewht shine.com/or/bend/ Effective {Section } Deooe Bv Less thn 30 successive clendr dys Prohibited except s permitted under the zoningcode;8%otrnsient Room Tx, City business license; Registrtion; Four yer mortized period htto :// tvof d eoo ebv.orslbdflordi nn ces/zoni ns24codifi ed Nov2O11.odf (Section 4.650) SAD DINATALE i4

70 Pge 69 of 120 Cse Study Defind Adopted Requirements & Stndrds lndiction of Effectiveness ordinnce Link Hood River Trnsient Rentl : dwelli n3 unit or room(s) rented for compenstion on less thn month-to-month bsis 20t6 3% tr ns ient room tx; Short-term rent I operting I icense; Mximum htto://ci.hoodoccupncytwopersonsperbedroomplustwodditionl persons;oneoffloosoonto ^---,, lell river.or.us/oeeview. streetprkingspceforeverytwobedrooms;dwdlingmustbeprimry sprs.id=zgg residence of the property owner (Section ) Joseph Trvelers ccomodtion: ny pri mry resdience, which is rot hotel or motel, hving rooms. prtrnents or sleeping fcilities rerted or kept for rent on di ly or weekl y bsi s to trvelers or trnsients for fee; Occupncy for less t:rn 3C,dys % trnsient lodging tx; Licence nd/or permit; Fcility is subject to revi ew duri ng fi rst three ye rs of opertion fter whi ch ti me perm nent permit for the f ci I ity s ccredited trvel ers' ccomodti on wi I I be i ss ued; One off-street p rki ng s p ce with owner's unit hvi ng two s pces; Onesign of sixsf mximumwith no morethn 150wtts of illumintion; Annu I i ns pection by the County He lth Dep rtment Somewht I neffecti ve httos ://drive.mogl e.c om/fi I e/d/0b6nlsjl iv4 ed3nor3bht IZODel edit Lincoln City Vction rentl dwelling: dwelling unittht is used, rented oroccupied on dily or weekly bsis, or is vilble for use, rent, or cccupncy on dily or weekly bsis, or is dvertised. or listed by n rgent s vilble for use, rent, or cccupncy on dily or weekly bsis. lniti lly in 1995, 5350 lnd usepprovl ppliction feg plus $100 licensefee plus 5ts0 updted occuptionl tx permiq Tr nsient lodgi ng tx t 9.5% of rentl chrge 2016 Somewht Effective htto:// shins.com/or/u ncoln CiW/ (section 1tOnnn -^l^f Choter 5.1). mendments re found t htto:/lwww.l i ncol ncit v.oreli ndex.sp?sec=5 5A859 F7-s E2s B7BE F128F08&Tvoe= B BAS Cin Ordinnces nd 2OL6-26 Mnznit ShortTerm Rentl: A dwelling unit tht is rented for period not to exceed 29 dys. 7994; cu rrent pol i ci es dopted 2010, mended 2076 $250 permit ( nnu I ), 9% tr ns i ent room tx; Adverti sement must cont i n licensing number; Subjectto inspection nd periodic reinspection; Some res subj ect to c p; Off-street p rki ng for two vehi cl es; SiSnge no I rger thn 90 squre inches; Occupncy cpcity oftwo persons per sleeping room plus n dditionl four persons Somewht I neffective nz n it.or.usl docs/ordin nces/str/ordi n nce %20700/,2003%20srR %z}teeultions%o20 mend%zji6%7oo5% odf lad DINATALt. 55

71 Pge 70 of 120 Cse Study Defined Adopted Requirements & Stndrds lndiction of Effectiveness Ordinnce Link Rockwy Bech Under 30 nights sty Prior to 2003 Business license; 9% trnsient room tx Somewht Effective i brrv.mlee l. com/nxt/etewv.dll/ Oreeon/rockwvbe ch orlthecitvofrock wvbe choresoncode ofordi n?f=temoltes Sfn=def ult.htms3.0s vid= mles l:rockwv Seside Less thn 30 dy Sisters Vction rentl: The use of residentil dwelling unit by ny person or group of persons entitled to occupy for rent for period of less th n 30 consecutive dys per month nd tht is rented in such mnner for more thn 10 dys in clendr yer Conditi on I Use Permit s ubj ect to publ i c he ri ng; Subj ect to i ns pection; Tr nsient room tx provi s ions; Permit wi I I be reviewed if two compl i nts re received by different residencies climing dverse impct; Minimum of two off street p rki ng spces pl us one ddti on I for ech bedroom over two Business license, Trnsient room tx, Subjectto inspection, Complints cn revoke permit, Subject to type 1 review process Source: Responding to Short-Term Rentls Survey, 2Ot7 nd code review (see links in tble) 2010 Somewht Effective htto:// es i de.us/s ites /def u I t/fi les/vrd checklist2016.odf: htto:// s i de.us/s i tes /def ul t/fi les/vrd checklist2ol6.pdl n.selfuzion. net/pdf /developmentcode/choler/o202. t9%o20specil%2@r ovisions9zoz0l] pdf SAD DINATALI 56

72 Pge 71 of 120 Appendix C: lndustry Summry for Cities with Airbnbs The following tble provides industry dt for ll cities in Oregon with Airbnb. Tble D.t. lndustry Summry by Region City by Region AirBnBs s % of Totl Housing Avg. Dily Rte per Property % of Properties Reserved >30 % of Properties (Entire Home) % of Properties (Privte/Shred Annul Revenue ntrl Oregon 4% s2oe 53% 78% 22% $37,539,776 Bend 6% $238 55% 81o/o t9% $32,207,439 Cscde Loci<s Culver Dufur Hood River L Pine Mdrs Mupin Mosier Prineville Redmond Siste rs The Dlles T% 0% to/o 9% 3% o% L% 12% Io/o 1% 8% 0o/o s7s so Srso s129 $ss s4e s216 sloo se3 s11s s1s3 57o/o o% 75% 47% 65% 0% LC0/o 42% 54% 49% 5t% s3% 57o/o ro0% 5V/o 660/o 87% 73% LWo 8r% SV/o 74% 73% 43% 43% 0% 3@/o 34%!9/o 27o/o o% t9% Str/o 26% 27% s7% s20,ss7 5o s19,189 s2,426, ,078 s4,63s $s7,672 s200,261 5t7t,47s 51,036,179 s983,947 North Costl Oregon 5% $206 53% 860/o \4% s24,875,499 Astori By City Cnnon Bech 2% 2o/o 4% s101 s133 s322 6L% 57% 7Lo/o s2% 93% 95% 48% 7% s% 5890,097 stlt,477 52,876,32o Depoe By Gribldi Lincoln City Mnznit Nehlem Newport Rockwy Bech Seside Tillmook Toledo Wldport Wrrenton 8o/o 0% 5o/o 7% 46% 2% 5o/o LO% 4% 0% 4% 1o/o s207 slee 5237 s27t s168 S18s S192 s216 S1s6 Szs s145 $168 Wheeler 0% 5o U/o lwo o% so Ychts 8% s158 78o/o 78% 22% s1,000,579 47% U/o 48% 56% 58% 46% 630/o 49o/o 55% so% 57% ss% 95o/o 100% 94% 91% 6o0/o 79% 93o/o 89% 89o/o 0% 76% 95% 5o/o o% 6Yo 9% Wo 2t% 7% IL% 11% tw% 24% s% s1,5s0,062 54,s7s Sq,tqslzg s1,368,9s7 s879,648 5L,322,st3 s1,58&036 s7,198,080 s1, s6, s,804 $282,578 Bker City Condon Elgin Ente rprise Fossi I Grss Vlley Hines Hlfwy o% L% Io/o 3% 4% 3o/o 0% 2% s11s S8e s s134 s127 s8s s75 ss% Wo 43% M% 30% 5OTo Oo/o 25% 60% s*/o 43o/o s2% 30% LWo U/o 75o/o 4oo/o sva 57% 48% 70% ff/o ]:ffi% 7So/" s1s8,813 sr,oel 522,84o s2i7, ,o72 5z3ss Sl,ers 58,ses SADIE DINA'TAI E 57

73 Pge 72 of 120 City by Region AirBnBs s % of Totl Housing Avg. Dily Rte per Propefi % of Properties Reserved >!X) % of Properties (Entire Home) % of Properties (Privte/Shred Annul Revenue Northest Heppner Hermiston lone lrrigon John Dy Joseph L Grnde Long Creek Losti ne Milton Freewter Mitchell Moro Pendleton Pririe City Richlnd Umtill Union Unity Wllow Wsco Continued,.. 0o/o 8/o 4o/o ff/o t%!tr/o Oo/o 5o/o 4% ff/o 60/o 3o/o o% Lo/o L% U/o 0% 2% o% 4o/o so s1s s67 SO s8s S2os s85 s86 58s Sgs 5747 s76 s140 s12o 572 Srss s133 s10s 548 0o/o Wo L4% 79o/o 25% U/o 60% 2Wo 0% U/o 27% 6U/o L00% Wo o% V/o 50% 88% n0% 75o/o 50% U/o IOO% 88% 55% U/o I00% ffi/o 83% '8/o 67% 7Wo too% lwo r00% lwo 50% l3o/o 0% 2s% SU/o 70u/o o% L2o/o 45o/o two U/o 4Mo 77% I0ff/o 33% ff/o o% tr/o o% ff/o 50% 88% So Srzo s1,200 So S13,9os s996, ,46s s344 Scs,szs s23,e25 srr,222 52,490 s49,041 s31464 ss,49s 5792 $s,3r.e s2,2n se,6eo Beverton Cornelius Dmscus Firview Forest Grove Gldstone Greshm Hppy Vlley Hillsboro Lke Oswego Oregon City Portlnd Sherwood Troutdle West Linn Wilsonville t% 8/o 0% V/o 0% L% t% t% T% 3% Oo/o 0% s51 s146 s48 s7s s6s s62 s78 s7s s7s ss8 ss7 s83 s104 $so 57t 49% lwo M% 61% 42% 33% 35% 26Yo 37o/o 41% 36% 49% 48% 33% 38% 28o/o 37% SCp/o 33% 6r% 33% 560/o 39% 460/o 37% 55% 38% Wo 52% 43% 45% 24/o 630/o 50f/o Ol-/o 39% 67% 44o/o 6r% 54% 63% 45o/o 620/o Wo 48% 57o/o 55% 76% 5r,620,76r s1s,4o2 S3s,o11 s85,018 s90,6s1 s30,761 s196,700 sr97,404 57s7,834 sse1s34 Srzt,zgs s6/',746,t32 s197,88s s71,sse s383,343 Bndon Brooki ngs 2% 2o/o 5227 St24 s2% Wo 63% 65% 38% 35o/o s423,0s3 sm1,365 SADIE DINA'IALE >B

74 Pge 73 of 120 City by Region AirBnBs s % of Totl Housing Avg. Dily Rte per Property % of Properties Reserved >30 % of Properties (Entire Home) % of Properties (Privte/Shred Annul Revenue Coos By Coquille Fl ore nce costl oregon Continued.., Gold Bech Lkesi de North Bend Port Orford T% U/o to/o 3% o% ff/o 4o/o lo/o sloe 567 $103 s135 ss8 5g: S137 74% 67o/o 58% 5t% 33% 72% 32% 35% 74% sa 80% 88Yo IOO% Southest Oregon T% s12s 8% 79% Burns 1% s42 30% 40% Chiloquin 1% s13o 74% 89% Jordn Vlley to/o s2 s0% 50% Klmth Flls t% s13s 46% 82% Ontrio Pisl o% Lo/o ss3 50% lwo 89o/o 97o/o 53o/o so% I0U/o 26% LWo 70% L2o/o o% LIo/o 3o/o s393,664 s9,600 s342,40s s310,273 5rz,6zs s122,735 S208,39s 47o/o 21% sr"143,628 60% 11% 5oo/o L8o/o 50% ff/o S60,93s sr85,222 s161 s880,611 st,tog Southern Oregon t% 47o/o 57% $e8 43% $4,885,800 Ashlnd Cnyonville Cve Junction Centrl Point Egle Point EIkton Gold Hill Grnts Pss Jcksonvi I le Medford Myrtle Creek Myrtle Point oklnd Phoenix Ridd le Rogue River Rosebu rg Sndy Shdy Cove Tlent Winston Yoncll 3% ff/o 2% ff/o o% 3% I% L% 4o/o ff/o I% 0To L% Lo/o 0% V/o 0% 3o/o Oo/o (f/o s11e Srgo s6s se1 5e8 sm S141 s76 se7 s8s sss Se s123 Sss So SL22 s88 s182 s17e 56s $o $n 4s% V/o 50% 63% 50% 33% 630/o 4t% 45% 53o/o 2s% t0ff/o 50% 33% 0% two 37% 85% o% 53% o% (P/n 69% ZU/o 36% 43o/o 40% two 100% 52% s2% 59P/o 63% 0% 2s% 33o/o I0tr/o LWo 44% 77% too% 3*/o t00% 31% 80% 64% 57% 60% 0% o% 48% 48% 4L% 38% rm'% 7s% 67% o% 8/, 56% 23% o% 6t% o% 52,160,243 s1,0s2 Ss7,47o S180,830 s49,303 s26,2l3 $s7,72s s44e, , ,6Ls 515,248 52s,2s7 54r,461 sso,s63 $o s33,902 S18o,6os il4o.,mi s+,ors S365,s16 so Albony 00,6 s42 50% 33% 679/o $t42,46s SADIE DINATALE 59

75 Pge 74 of 120 City by Region AirBnBs s % of Totl Housing Avg. Dily Rte per Property % of Properties Reserved >30 % of Properties (Entire Home) % of Properties (Privte/Shred Annul Revenue illmette Vlley Continued... Amity Aumsville Auror Bn ks Brownsville t% o% 2% t% L% 5147 s80 $gg Srr+ Sroz 860/o o% 77% 43% 80% 86% 100% 7L% 29% 7ff/o 14% 0% 29o/o 7L% 3V/o s98,09s s80 s63,928 S43,118 sss,oos Cnby crlton Cltsknie Columbi City Co rv llis 0% 3% 0% ff/o!o/o ss0 s1s8 ss3 5o s78 52% 28P/o 33% U/o 46% 24% 83% 33% 50To 32% 76% L7% 67% sw/o 68% s67,sls s155,9s2 s12,001 5o sse4oee Cottge Grove Creswell Dlls Dyton Detroit Dundee T%!o/o Wo 4% V/o 3o/o s40 Sos s78 s138 s % 55% N% 45o/o U/o 57o/o 43% 55o/o Wo 79% two 67% 57% 45o/o Wo 2r% ff/o 33o/o s81,810 s36,876 s26,238 5t99,324 ss,oso S341,089 Estcd U/o 532 SgYo SU/o Str/o st]-,879 Eugene Flls City 2% U/o 5124 So 43% U/o 59% lwo 4r% Wo 58,284,sss So Gston Gtes Hrrisburg Hubbrd ldnh lndependence 5o/o 2% Oo/o ff/o 4% t% s126 s113 s180 ssl s2ts s82 55o/o 25o/o Oo/o U/o 40% 41% 82o/o two Lm.% V/o 40% 59% r8% ff/o 0% lwo 60% 41o/o SLI2,M6 51&48s s5,o3o s ,8t2 577,L70 J effe rson Junction City Lfyette 0% L% 0% s46 ss7 So 40% SU/o 0% 60% 560/o r00% 40% 44% 0% s1r.,738 s6&sss So Lebnon Lowell Lyons Mcminnville Mill City Molll Monmouth Monroe Newberg North Plins 8/o Io/o I% 7% o% o% ff/o L% T% 0o/o ss1 s1s3 s11s s133 S118 s68 Ss4 Sttz Srsr Sss 5Wo 67% 67% 62% SU/o o% 29o/o 50% 4lo/o o% 5@/o r00% SWo 58o/o ff/o 40% 29o/o 0o/o 640/o 50% 50Yo 0o/o 5V/o 42% 7Wo 6o0/o 7L% LW% 36% 50% s4s,060 'Ls,787 s67,07l 5647,s27 s44eo 5s,151 s33,461 58,s36 ss%,s2e S1,341 Okridge Philomth ff/o Io/o se o/o 53% 78% 67% 22% 33% 524,837 57e,L64 SADIE DINATAIF bo

76 Pge 75 of 120 City by Region AirBnBs s % of Avg, Dily Rte Totl Housing per Property % of Properties Reserved >30 % of Properties (Entire Home) % of Properties (Privte/Shred Annul Revenue Willmette Vlley Continued... Rinier Sint Helens Sint Pul Slem Scppoose Scio Scotts Mills Sheridn Silverton Spri ngfield Styton Sublimity Sweet Home Tngent Turner Venet Vernoni Westfir Willmin Woodburn Ymhill 8/o o% LOA o% V/o 2% 2% Io/o Lo/o 0% U/o o% 8/o o% U/o T% L% 8% U/o o% 304 So s4s SO $60 Ss3 5e3 51s7 s101 se8 se8 Ses 577 s $4s se2 57s ss6 Sro s61 ff/o 46% sv/o 67o/o 67% s0% 59% 45% 67% 67o/o V/o LOU/O 5tr/o 20% 29% 33% lwo 56% 42% \tr/o 2s% \Wo 32o/o 25o/o s0% lwo 60% 4to/o 46% 67% o% 670/o too% 5CP/o 45% t4% 5U/o LWo n% 58% 49P/o 63/" Sff/o 75% ff/o 68% 7s% so% f/o 40% s9% 54% 33% t00% 33% o% SOYo 55% 86% 50% 0/o 89% 42% So 512,493 5o 5733,s10 Sss,434 $ss,987 $1978s s3&93s s17s,l67 $454,422 ss0,039 s1o,42s s648 s44s1 5r,472 ss4,9so s15,236 $74,176 s L,s62 s LlO % 5t56,733,976 Source: AirDnA. Property Dl. Airbnbs s % of loll housing units uses Americn Community Survey dt ( s). SADIE DINATALE 61

77 Pge 76 of 120 Appendix D: Sensitivity Test, AirDnA vs Airbnb Dt Sensitivity testing suggests similrities between both dtsets. Note, AirBnB dt ws pulled in Jnury of zo'r7, while AirDnA dt ws pulled in Mrch of zo't7. This my hve creted slight discrepncies for indictors. Still, proportion of entire homes nd privte/shred rooms re within +l- 3% on verge. Host incomes were within +/- $5,ooo (removing Cnnon Bech s the outlier). Averge nights hosted/reserved dys were within dys nd the verge difference between monthly rtes ws g7z. Tble E.t. Sensitivity Testing of AirDnA nd Airbnb Dt using Vrious lndictors Proportion of Entire Propotion of Privte/ Typicl Nights Hosted/ Typicl Host lncome Home Listings Shred Room Listings Reservtion Dys City AirBnB AirBnB AirBnB AirDnA AirBnB AirDnA AirDnA AirDnA (Groomed) (Groomed) Ashlnd 77% 690/o 23% 31% s10,550 s8,309 7t 53 Astori 55% 52%o 45%o 48o/o s8,o8o 59, Bndon Beverton Bend Brookings Cnnon Bech Corvllis Cottge Grove Depoe By Florence Gerhrt Gold Bech Grnts Pss Hillsboro Hood River Jcksonville Jordn Vll 67% 4% 75% 87% 78% 65% 97% 42% 99Yo 95% 8t% 8V/o 97% 90% 88% 68% 52% 4r% 66% 66% s8% 63% 37% 9s% 32% 43% 37% s2% 68% SU/o 33% 38% s6% 63To 25% 19% 22% 3% 57% 3s% 5% 68% s8% s7% t% t9% 3%!U/o 5% 20% 12% 32% 48% s9% 63% 34% 34% 42% 32o/o 48% so% 56,290 s10,280 59,930 Ss,760 szs6o s8,814 $q]zg s ,w9 s35,077 55,tz8 52,337 s13,866 58,560 5i,216 *,49r Ss,24o s3,609 s7,4oo $6,!7o 57,s37 54,tso Ssr N L2 T7 Averge Nightly AirBnb (2016) Rte AirDnA S131 Slse Si.32 sl36 sr.62 52e4 5gz s12o s1s4 $3s4 514s 51e7 s2ss Sgs 567 Sgn 5426 s8s Stqt S1i.e Si.s3 Szgq S183 S290 s111 s141 s80 slso S11s Sreo s118 $ s SADIE DINATALE 62

78 Pge 77 of 120 Joseph City Klmth Flls L Pine Lke Oswego Lincoln City Mnznit McMinnville Medford Milwukie Nehlem Newberg Newport Oregon City Redmond Rockwy Bech Seside Si ste rs Springfield Tlent The Dlles Tigrd Tillmook Wldport West Linn Ychts Proportion of Entire Propotion of Privte/ Home Listi AirBnB 87% 85% 82% 83% 81% 63% 55% 94% 94% 95% 9t% 55% )8% 63% r9% 49% 45% 5tr/o 62% 54% 82% 79% 53% 76% 74% 94% )3% 85% 39o/o 7t% st% 34% 4L% 35% 92% 89% 83% 76% s0% 4s% 76% AirDnA AirBnB 88% 38% 73% 46% 39% 43% 78% Shred Room Listi Typicl Host lncome Source: AirDnA, Property Dt, Retrieved Mrch Airbnb Property Dt, s ofjnury I, % 12% 15% t8% 17% AirDnA 19% 37% 45o/o 6% s% 6% 9o/o 45% 42% 37o/o 4t% si% 55% 40% 38% 36% L8% 47% 24% 6% t5% 2L% 62% 26% 7% tt% 29% 27% 49% 54% 66% s9% 6s% 8% t7% 61% 57% It% 24% 50% s5% 24% 22% AirBnB {Groomedl AirDnA Sli,176 53,220 56,572 s&e3o 5r4,L7o s6,904 s6, , ,160 s16,105 s8,8so S10,410 59,z9o 54,980 Si.o,73o 59,o9o s1&8oo ilt,t7o $8,oto $8,750 s6,809 sl2,2l7 57,34s s9,380 54,etz So,uz Sts,gzs s16,285 59,196 53,720 54,A57 55,850 54,892 Ss,r+o s15,290 s5, ,941 59,4i4 54,670 54,675 s13,520 5'1,4,714 Typicl Nights Hosted/ Averge Nightly Reservtion AirBnB AirDnA (Groomed) 2t t L i il t Rte AirBnb AirDnA I201:6l 513e s136 s1_82 5z4o s $ztt 5386 s26e s362 Srg sr.oe 571 s1s3 s1s2 sr67 s87 s107 Sleo slss izt s343 5i-04 st77 s22s Sr s18s s3os $246 57e sr.37 s77 se8 s1o $e1 s18e slse Szl:, S2s8 s106 S11s 5130 SAD DINAIALI.: oj

79 Pge 78 of 120 Bibliogrphy Airbnb, lnc. https// Retrieved October 24, Blrm, Brhmie. (zot6). How Do We Collbortively Regulte the Shring Economy? RSA. Becker, K. F. (zoo4, Mrch). The lnforml Economy. Sid. Retrieved Octobert5,zo'16. Benner, K. (zot6, Oct.) Airbnb Sues Over New Lw Regulting New York Rentls. NY Times. lzot6holzzltechnology/new-york-psses-lw-irbnb.html?_r=o Binzer, Ulrik. (zot7). Wht to Do bout Airbnb, Plnning, Chicgo 83.2:44. Botsmn, R., & Rogers, R. (zoto). Wht's mine is yours: The rise of collbortive consumption. New York, NY: Hrper Business. Retrieved Octobert5,zo't6. Broughton, P. D. (2o15, Mrch z8). Unfir shres: The sinister, mnipultive side of Uber nd Airbnb. The Specttor. Retrieved October t5, zo't6. Dunoriene, Ast; Drksite, Aur; Sniesk, Vytuts; Gitn Vlodkiene. (zor5). Evluting Sustinbility of Shring Economy Business Models. zoth lnterntionl Scientific Conference Economics nd Mngement. Procedi - Socilnd Behviorl Sciences 2t3,836-84t. Dillow, Cly. (zot6). Cn Airbnb Book Billion Nights Yer By zo25,, Fortune. ortune.com/zor 6/o4lr r/irbnb-bookings-one-billion--yer/ Economic & Plnning System, lnc. (zot5, July 7). The lmpct of Vction Rentls on Affordble nd Workforce Housing in Sonom County. The Economics of Lnd Use. Retrieved October r5, zor6. ECONorthwest. (2o16, July). Housing Affordbility lmpcts of Homewy in Settle. Retrieved October 15,2016. Ellen, l. G. (zot5, July r4). Housing Low-lncome Households: Lessons from the Shring Economy? H ousing Pol icy Debte, 201 5, z5(4), 7 g Retrieved Octoberr5, zot6. Fng, B., Ye, Q., & Lw, R. (zor6, Mrch). Effect of shring economy on tourism industry employment. Annls of Tourism Reserch, 57, Retrieved Octobert5,zot6. Flth, D. (t98o, April). The Economics of Short-term Lesing. Economic lnquiry. $(z), Fleetwood, B. (2o12). DIY B&B. The Wshington Monthly, 44,3839.Retrieved October 15.,2016. Frenken, Koen; Meelen, Toonl Arets, Mrtijn; nd vn de Glind, Pierter. (zor5). Smrter regultion for the shring economy, The 6urdin. 5/my/zo/smrter-regultion-for-the-shrin g-economy Gllgher, Leigh. (zor7). Airbnb's Profits to Top g3 Billion by zozo, Fortune. http ://f ortu n esom I zo'r7 lo z/r 5/ irbn b-prof its/ Goodmn, J. (zot6, Februry). Could You BnB My Neighbor? A plnner's tke on the shring economy. Plnning, Retrieved October t5, zot6. Gottlieb, C. (zot3, Jnury r7). Residentil Short-Term Rentls: Should Locl Governments Regulte therlndustryr? Plnning & Environmentl Lw. Retrieved October 15.,2016. Cregory, Anne nd Hlff, Gregor. (zot7). Understnding public reltions in the 'shring economy,' Public Reltions Review 43,4-13. Gurrn, Nicole nd Phibbs, Peter (zot7). When Tourists Move ln: How Should Urbn Plnners Respond to Airbnb?, Journl of the Americn plnning ssocition, 83:r, 8o-92, DOI: t o.t o8o/0r zot6.tz49or Guttentg, D. (2013, September z). Airbnb: Disruptive innovtion nd the rise of n informl tourism ccommodtion sector. Current lssues in Tourism. Retrieved October t5,zo't6. SADII DINATALE 64

80 Pge 79 of 120 Hill, S. (zor5). The Unsvory Side of Airbnb. The Americn Prospect, z6(4), 8o-85. Retrieved October 15,2016. HOM Editor. (n.d.). How Short-Term-Rentls lmpct Your Neighborhood. Retrieved from Hood River County Community Development. (zot6, April r3). Short Term Rentl ("STR") Bckground I nformtion. Retrieved October 15, zot6, from Memo_lssues_Exhibits_4.t3.t6.pdf lnterin, J. (zor6). Up in the Air: Hrmonizing the Shring Economy through AirBnB Regultions. Boston College lnterntionl nd Comprtive Lw Review. Retrieved October 15,2016. Jckson, P. J. (zoo6, April z6). Tx Tretment of Short Term Residentil Rentls: Reform Proposl. CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved October t5,zot6. Ktz, Vness. (zor5). Regulting the Shring Economy, Berkeley Technology Lw Journl. Volume 3o, lssue 4, Annul Review. Kindel, Nichols, et l. (2016). Short Term Rentl Study, City of New Orlens. Lowe, D., & Hughes, D. (u orz). Privte Rented Housing Mrket: Regultion or Deregultion. Ashgte. Mkwn, Rjesh (zor3). Vlues nd the Shring Economy, Our World, Humnitrin Affirs. un u.edu/en/vlues-nd-the-shring-economy Mrtin, C. J. (zor6). The shring economy: A pthwy to sustinbility or nightmrish form of neoliberl cpitlism? Ecologicl Economics, Retrieved October 15,2016. Miller, S. R. (zor6). First Principles for Regulting the Shring Economy. Hrvrd Journl on Legisltion, 53. Retrieved October t5, zo't6. Ntionl University System Institute for Policy Reserch. (zot5, October). Short-term Rentls in the City of Sn Diego: An Economic lmpct Anlysis, Retrieved October 15,2016. Nickles, C. (zor5). How Community Cn Help Bby Boomers Cope with Cregiving. Community,27, Retrieved October t5, zo't6, Oklnd, Willim H. nd Test, Willim A. (n.d.). Stte-locl business txtion nd the benefits principle. Economic Perspectives, Federl Reserve Bnk of Chicgo. Office of Mngement nd Finnce, Revenue Division, Bureu of Development Services, & Bureu of Plnning nd Sustinbility. (zot6, September). Accessory Short-term Rentls Monitoring Report. Rees Consulting, lnc. (zot6, June). White Pper Short-Term Vction Home Rentls lmpcts on Workforce Housing in Breckenridge. Retrieved Octobert5, zot6. Swtzky, K. (zor6, October 5). Response to the City ofvncouver's proposed pproch to regulting short-term rentls. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from uences.wordpress.com/ Shepprd, Stephen nd Udell, Andrew. (zor6). Do Airbnb properties ffect house prices? Willims College Deprtment of Economics nd Dropbox, lnc. Retrieved Aprilt9,zot7. Short Term Rentl Advoccy Center (n.d.). Policy Positions. Smith, Crig. (zor7). 9o Amzing Airbnb Sttistics nd Fcts (Mrch zort), DmR. gs.com/index.php/irbnb-sttistics/ SLrr, Adr irr. (zo t6). The future is tlre trust economy, Tech Crunch, ot6 o +lz+lthe-f uture-is-the-trust-economy/. Sullivn, Edwrd. (zot7). Regulting Short-Term Rentls, Legl Lessons, Americn Plnning Assocition. S/\DIF DINATALE 6i

81 Pge 80 of 120 Sundrrjn, Arun. (zot6). Wht Governments Cn Lern From Airbnb nd the Shring Economy, Fortune. http//fortune.com/zor 6/ o7 ltzlirbnb-discrimintion/ Sustinble Economies Lw Center (zot6). Regulting Short-Term Rentls: A 6uidebook for Equitble Policy. TXP, lnc. (zot4). The Locl Economic lmpct of Prticipting Short Term Rentls in Los Angeles. Retrieved April'r9, zot7. TXP, lnc. (zot4). The Locl Economic lmpct of Prticipting Short Term Rentls in Monterey County. Retrieved April g, zot7. TXP, lnc. (zot5). The Locl Economic lmpct of Prticipting Short Term Rentls in Snt Brbr, CA. Retrieved April t9, zo'r7. TXP, lnc. (zot4). The Locl Economic lmpct of Prticipting Short Term Rentls in St. Joseph, M l. Retrieved Octobert5, zot6. Vrm, A., Jukic, N., Pestek, A., Shultz, C. J., & Nestorov, S. (zor6, September). Airbnb: Exciting innovtion or pssing fd? Tourism Mngement Perspectives,22S-237. Retrieved October r5, zo16. Wllce, Nick. (zot6). Where do Airbnb hosts mke the most money? SmrtAsset. Will short-term rentls ctully reduce long term housing in grnny flts? (zor6, April 4). Retrieved from lings.org/zot6l o 4l o 4l d ustr/ SADIE DINATALF- 66

82 2 Frns Fontine hornbem trees in lieu of 1 Seiru Jpnese Mple tree Pge 81 of 120 Dshed lines indicte wlls chnged from concrete to wood slts SOUTH PINE STREET 3-D View Perimeter Fence Gtewy Cnopy Green Wll ODOT Sidewlk Stirs Historic Seed Mchine Rmp Stormwter Plntings Fire Pit Perimeter Fence Cnopy Movble Plnters Trsh Enclosure Fence Cr Chrging Sttion Bike Rcks Dumpster Flneur Wines. Mdsen Grin Compny Site Crlton Heights. Moore Architecture + Design. Lngo Hnsen Lndscpe Architects Mrch 22, 2019 N

83 Pge 82 of Frns Fontine hornbem trees in lieu of 1 Seiru Jpnese Mple tree Wlls chnged from concrete to wood slts Flneur Wines. Mdsen Grin Compny Site Crlton Heights. Moore Architecture + Design. Lngo Hnsen Lndscpe Architects Mrch 22, 2019

84 Crlton Heights South Tower Moore Architecture + Design. Lngo Hnsen Lndscpe Architects Pge 83 of 120

85 Site Aeril 3, Proposed Improvements November, 2017 Pge 84 of 120 Crlton Heights South Tower Moore Architecture + Design. Lngo Hnsen Lndscpe Architects View from Southwest, Proposed Improvements November, 2017

86 Pge 85 of 120

87 Pge 86 of OO "EXHIBIT A'' NOTICE OF A PUBLIC. HEARING CITY OF CARLTON \ I{OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN tht the City of Crlton plnning Commission will hold public fglino on Mondy, April 15, 2019 t 6:00 pm t the Crlton City Hlt, 191 Est Min Street,io consider: City File #CptuZ C g_ Community Home Builders _ Request by the City of Crlton for pprovlof Comprehensive pln Amendment nd Zone Chnge to build multiple new buildings. The property is currenfly zoned Agriculturl Holding (A-H) nd is locted t Est Roosevelt Skeet, further described s Assessors Mp R3421M, Tx Lots nd The relevnt stndrds nd criteri re found in the Crlton Development Code s follows: _ 11 4SAOricutturt hotding * (AH) Residentil-Medium High_ Density R-3 District * Zone Chnge * Type lvactions public Hering Before the Plnning Commission Reviews nd public Hering by City Council I HOW TO parttctpate: Any v person desiring to spek either t for or ginst the proposl my do so in person or by uthorized,6 representtive t the public nenng. ln ddition, written comments my be submitted prior to the hering with the City Recorder t City Hll. The documents, evidence or stff repgrt relied upon will be vilble for inspection t City Hll seven dys priorto the hering t no cost nd will be provided t resonble cost. Public comments shll ddress the relevnt criteri. Filure of n issue to be rised in the hering, in person or in writing, or filure to provide- suffieient NPtuE- KEEP ING YOU C 611 NE Third Street PO Box727 (503) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of Ymhill 3qw ttt NNECTED l, Den Holcomb, being first duly sworn, depose nd sy tht I m the Legl Clerk, of the NEWS-REGISTER, newspper of generl circultion s defined by O.R.S. ' nd O.R.S published two times ech week t McMinnville, County of Ymhill, Stte of Oregon, nd tht Gity of Grlton - Public Hering April 15,2019 Public Hering- - Mrch 26,2019 Subscribed nd sworn before me this 't f Notry Public for Oregon My Commission Expires b{ I

88 Pge 87 of 120 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF CARLTON NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN tht the City of Crlton Plnning Commission will hold public hering on Mondy, April 15, 2019 t 6:00 pm t the Crlton City Hll, 191 Est Min Street, to consider: City File #CPA/ZC Community Home Builders Request by the City of Crlton for pprovl of Comprehensive Pln Amendment nd Zone Chnge to build multiple new buildings. The property is currently zoned Agriculturl Holding (A-H) nd is locted t Est Roosevelt Street, further described s Assessors Mp R3421AA, Tx Lots nd The relevnt stndrds nd criteri re found in the Crlton Development Code s follows: Agriculturl holding (AH) Residentil-Medium High-Density R-3 District Zone Chnge Type IV Actions Public Hering Before the Plnning Commission Reviews nd Public Hering by City Council HOW TO PARTICIPATE: Any person desiring to spek either for or ginst the proposl my do so in person or by uthorized representtive t the public hering. In ddition, written comments my be submitted prior to the hering with the City Recorder t City Hll. The documents, evidence or stff report relied upon will be vilble for inspection t City Hll seven dys prior to the hering t no cost nd will be provided t resonble cost. Public comments shll ddress the relevnt criteri. Filure of n issue to be rised in the hering, in person or in writing, or filure to provide sufficient specificity to fford the Plnning Commission n opportunity to respond to n issue mens tht n ppel on tht issue cnnot be filed with the Stte Lnd Use Bord of Appels. The meeting is ccessible to the disbled. If you hve the need for specil ccommodtion to ttend or prticipte in the hering, notify the City Recorder 24 hours before the hering. For further informtion or to review the file, plese contct the City Plnner Crole Connell or Plnning Clerk, Aimee Amerson t City Hll t (503)

89 Pge 88 of 120

90 Pge 89 of 120 CITY OF CARLTON PLANNING COMMISSION April 4, 2019 STAFF REPORT: Comprehensive Pln Mp nd Zone Chnge Amendment City File# CPA/ZC FROM: Crole Connell, Crlton City Plnner HEARING DATE: April 15, 2019 APPLICANT: OWNER: REQUEST: SUBJECT LOCATION: DESIGNATION: CRITERIA: Ymhill Community Development Corp NE 27th St. McMinnville, OR Sme A Comprehensive Pln & Zone Mp mendment from Agriculturl Holding AH to Residentil Medium High Density R-3 A portion of Tx Lot 300, Section 21AA, T3S R4W Rolling Hills Subdivision; Vcnt lnd djoining Est Roosevelt Street consisting of 2.05 cres Comprehensive Pln Mp: Agriculturl Holding Zoning: Agriculturl Holding AH Crlton Development Code (CDC) Chpters AH nd R-3 Zones; Zone Chnge; Public Herings Before the Plnning Commission nd City Council; Type IV Actions ENCLOSURES: Applicnt s Appliction & cover letter, City mp of sites zoned R-3, Memo & Supplementl Memo by M. Mikesh Architect, HUD Income Limits Documenttion System, Preliminry Site Pln A1.1, A1.2, Concept View A2.7, Wetlnd Delinetion Environmentl Technology Consultnts I. REQUEST The pplicnt requests Comprehensive Pln nd Zone Mp chnge from griculturl to medium high density residentil to llow for future housing on 2.05 cre portion of tx lot 300 on the north side of Roosevelt Street. The request does not include development proposl. The plns provided by the pplicnt re for illustrtion purposes. The tenttive plns reflect the Community Homebuilders typicl project for 9 to 12 modertely priced dwellings.

91 Pge 90 of 120 A portion (23,070 sq. ft.) of the originl tx lot 300 is occupied by floodplin nd wetlnd nd ws combined with the djoining tx lot 800 in legl Property Boundry Adjustment pproved by the City on The prcel ws sold to the djoining frmer for $1 becuse the pplicnt determined the subject re ws unusble. In ddition, the estern portion of tx lot 300 is 50 x 1,013 re tht ppers to hve been designted for street right-of-wy s shown on the Rolling Hills Plt (2006). The Crlton TSP designtes Roosevelt Street to be connected from N. 1st Street to N. 4 th Street including this nrrow segment of tx lot 300. The street is plnned collector street nd is designed to provide street ccess to lnd currently zoned Agriculturl Holding on both sides. It lso intends to provide n lternte route to Hwy 47 from the north side of town. II. PROCEDURE & AUTHORITY A Pln/Zone Chnge is processed s Type IV public hering procedure governed by CDC At the initil public hering the Plnning Commission will mke recommendtion to City Council bsed on substntil findings in response to the pln nd zone mp mendment pprovl criteri of CDC The City Council will be presented with the Plnning Commission recommendtion nd will lso hold public hering governed by CDC B. City Council my decide to pprove or deny the pln/ zone mp mendment. Approvl is dopted by ordinnce. The Council s finl decision my be ppeled to the Lnd Use Bord of Appels. III. AGENCY COMMENTS The following comments were received: City Engineer: Gordon Munro emil public fcility comments IV. SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION Existing Zoning nd Development: The subject property is zoned Agriculturl Holding nd is vcnt. The prcel is surrounded by the R-1 low density residentil zone, Public Fcility zone on the nerby fire sttion property nd the Agriculturl Holding zone. The Ymhels Westsider Tril route djoins the west boundry of the site. AH Zone: The purpose of the Agriculturl Holding zone is to llow for griculturl uses to continue until such time the lnd is needed for urbn uses nd public fcilities nd services re vilble. The AH zone permits griculturl or horticulturl uses nd wineries. The zone lso permits single fmily dwelling outright for owners, opertors or help required to crry out the griculturl use. Agriculturl uses include the rising of crops, the feeding, breeding nd mngement of livestock for diry or other g uses. FINDINGS: The vcnt lnd is not in griculturl or horticulturl use. The pplicnt nd owner of the lnd is the Ymhill Community Development Corp. doing business s Community Home Builders. The pplicnt purchsed the vcnt lnd nd hs pplied to the City for zone chnge to tke the subject 2.05 cres out of Agriculturl Holding nd permit it

92 Pge 91 of 120 to be developed for urbn residentil use becuse public fcilities nd services re vilble to the site nd the lnd is inside the Crlton Urbn Growth Boundry (UGB).

93 Pge 92 of 120 R-3 Zone: The City hs three residentil zones, R-1, R-2 nd R-3. For comprison the minimum lot sizes for single fmily home in ech zone re: R-1 zone is 7,500 SF; R-2 zone is 6,000 SF; R-3 zone is 4,000 SF R-3 ZONE PURPOSE The Residentil-Medium High Density (R-3) district provides opportunities for higher density housing in close proximity to substntil commercil nd public development where full urbn services re vilble. The R-3 district, which generlly ccommodtes residentil development of eight (8) to thirty-two (32) units per cre, is consistent with the residentil comprehensive pln designtion Permitted uses. The following uses re permitted in the Residentil-Medium High Density district: A. Duplex dwelling, Multi-fmily dwellings, Mnufctured Home Prks subject to Chpter B. Public prk nd recretion re. C. Plnned unit development subject to the provisions of Chpter D. Bording, lodging, or rooming house. E. Child cre fcilities, s defined by Oregon Revised Sttutes Chpter 657A. F. Residentil cre homes nd Residentil Cre fcilities, s defined by this ordinnce. All residentil cre homes nd residentil cre fcilities shll be duly licensed by the Stte of Oregon. G. Home occuption, subject to the provisions of Chpter H.Single-fmily dwelling subdivisions pltted fter [effective dte of mended code] provided subdivision chieves density of not less thn eight (8) dwelling unit per cre. I. Single-fmily dwellings (ttched or non-ttched), including single-fmily mnufctured dwelling subject to Chpter , lwfully existing s of [effective dte of mended code]. J. A single-fmily vction rentl dwelling unit, when such dwelling obtins vction rentl dwelling permit in ccordnce with the vction rentl dwelling conditionl use stndrds nd procedures set forth in Chpter

94 Pge 93 of Conditionl uses. The following uses re permitted s conditionl uses, provided tht such uses re pproved in ccordnce with Chpter A. Plce of worship. B. Public or privte school. C. Community building D. Utility fcility including utility rights-of-wy. E. Bed nd brekfst. F. A two-fmily vction rentl dwelling when such dwelling obtins vction rentl permit for both units, unless one of the units is owner-occupied, in ccordnce with the vction rentl dwelling stndrds set forth in Section Dimensionl stndrds. The following dimensionl stndrds shll be the minimum requirements for ll development in the R-3 district except for modifictions permitted under Chpter Minimum Lot Are Single-fmily dwelling (1) Non-common wll dwelling 4,000 squre feet for n interior lot nd 5,000 squre feet for corner lot (2) Attched (townhome) dwelling Mximum of two (2) consecutively ttched units 2,400 squre feet for n interior lot nd 5,000 squre feet for corner lot Duplex or Single-Dwelling with Accessory Dwelling 8,000 squre feet

95 Pge 94 of 120 Multi-fmily dwelling, 3-unit 9,500 squre feet plus 1,500 squre feet per unit in excess of 3 units Public utility structures Lot re shll be dequte to contin ll proposed structures within the required yrd setbcks Minimum Yrd Setbck Requirements, except s provided for Accessory Structures under Chpter 17.96: Front yrd 20 feet, except 15 feet for uncovered porches nd covered but unenclosed porches not more thn one story high Rer yrd 15 feet Side yrd (interior) 7 feet Side yrd (djcent to street) 20 feet, except 15 feet for uncovered porches nd covered but unenclosed porches not more thn one story high Minimum lot width t building line 40 feet for interior lot nd 50 feet for corner lot, except 24 feet for interior lot with ttched dwelling Mximum structure height 35 feet

96 Pge 95 of Development stndrds. All development in the R-3 district shll comply with the pplicble provisions of Chpters through In ddition, the following specific stndrds shll pply: A. Accessory Structures. Accessory structures s provided for in Chpter B. Off-street Prking. Prking shll be s specified in Chpter C. Subdivisions nd Prtitions. Lnd divisions shll be reviewed in ccordnce with the provisions of Chpters through , s pplicble. D. Lot Coverge. The following stndrds re pplied to prcel re or lot re, s pplicble : 1. Mximum building coverge by buildings: forty (40) percent; 2. Mximum lot coverge by impervious surfces, including pvement nd roofed res not considered buildings: thirty (30) percent; 3. Combined mximum lot coverge: seventy (70) percent. E. Multi-fmily residentil uses (three or more units) shll be subject to the site design review procedures of Chpter F. Lndscping. Multi-fmily dwelling developments shll provide minimum lndscped re equl to twenty-five (25) percent of the gross site re. Lndscping improvements shll be instlled nd mintined in ccordnce with Chpter G. Signs. Signs shll conform to the requirements of Chpter H. Drivewys. Drivewys shll conform to the stndrds I. Lndscping nd Screening. All front nd street side yrds shll be lndscped pursunt to Section Other lndscping, fencing or other screening my be required pursunt to lnd division pprovl or other lnd use pprovl. All lndscping shll be instlled in ccordnce with Chpter nd pproved plns prior to issunce of building occupncy permits. J. The minimum lndscpe re stndrd of twenty-five (25) percent for multifmily development my be reduced to ten (10) percent where the development pln dedictes onequrter (¼) cre or more lnd for neighborhood prk, consistent with n dopted city prks pln. K. Building nd Site Design. All residentil structures shll conform to the design stndrds of Chpter (Ord. 619, 2003; Ord (Exh. A)(prt), 2007; Ord. No. 693, 1(Exh. A), ) (END CDC R-3 Zone section)

97 Pge 96 of 120 About the Applicnt, Community Home Builders: The following re excerpts from the Community Home Builders website: Community Home Builders hs been operting in the Willmette Vlley for over 28 yers, providing stble housing for more thn 600 people, including 300 children. We hve contributed over $32 million dollrs to our locl economy by prtnering with locl vendors, contrctors, nd suppliers, who hve helped us build more thn 200 ffordble homes. Our Mission is investing in individuls, fmilies, nd rurl communities by developing ownership, equity, nd skills. MILLION DOLLARS TO OUR LOCAL ECONOMY We support locl businesses by contrcting with re vendors, contrctors, nd suppliers. YEARS SERVING RURAL COMMUNITIES Since 1990, Community Home Builders hs been dedicted to building ffordble neighborhoods in rurl res. AFFORDABLE HOMES BUILT To dte, we hve built over 200 homes in McMinnville, Gervis, Crlton, Amity, Sheridn, Lfyette, nd Dyton, Oregon. Our min focus is the Mutul Self-Help Housing Progrm for low income individuls nd fmilies in rurl communities. Approved pplicnts join group of 8-12 fmilies who work together to build neighborhood. They receive USDA mortgges with reduced pyments, long with technicl ssistnce nd construction trining. VI. ZONE CHANGE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A Pln/Zone Mp Chnge is subject to the provisions of CDC Section Zone Chnge Zone chnge defined. A "zone chnge" is reclssifiction of ny re from one zone or district to nother, fter the proposed chnge hs been reviewed nd recommendtion mde by the Plnning Commission. Such chnge shll be pssed in ordinnce form by the City Council fter proceedings hve been ccomplished in ccordnce with the following provisions.

98 Pge 97 of Zone chnge procedure A. Tht there is lck of other comprtively zoned property to stisfy the proposed use; FINDINGS: The vst mjority of lnd in the city is zoned R-1 nd is developed with single fmily homes. The R-2 nd R-3 zones primrily djoin the centrl downtown district, but re fully developed. The ppliction illustrtes there is very little vcnt lnd in Crlton currently zoned R-3. Stff confirms tht virtully none of the lnd zoned R-3 is vcnt, vilble or lrge enough to develop for multifmily residences. B. Tht the chnge of zone is in conformnce with comprehensive pln, the Crlton development code, nd ny pplicble street nd highwy plns; FINDINGS: The request cn be found to meet mny of the City s economic, housing nd trnsporttion gols, s described in the pplicnt s report nd the findings in section below. C. Tht the proposed property is dequte in size nd shpe to fcilitte those uses llowed in the proposed zone; FINDINGS: A 2.05 cre portion of the prcel is being considered for n R-3 designtion. The pplicnt hs illustrted how n estimted 12 single fmily nd two ttched (duplex) dwellings fit on the prcel in complince with the R-3 zone stndrds. D. Tht the proposed property relted to streets nd highwys is dequte to serve the type of trffic tht will be generted by uses in proposed zone; nd FINDINGS: The Crlton TSP illustrtes tht the subject portion of Roosevelt on the site is plnned collector street for improved vehicle nd pedestrin ccess to the north side town. The pplicnt proposes to dedicte the street right-of-wy to the city est of proposed development s well s tht portion djoining the development. The street is plnned to be public collector street. Street detils will be determined during future development review of the site. E. Tht the proposed chnge of zone will hve no substntil impct on the butting property or the uses thereof. FINDINGS: There is one butting frm property on the north boundry of the subject site. Future development will dd residentil bck yrd uses djoining the existing frm. All other sides of the subject prcel but public street right-of-wy. Existing single fmily dwellings on the south side of Roosevelt will be impcted by the proposed chnge in lnd use from vcnt lot to residentil use Appliction nd fee An ppliction for zone chnge shll be filed with the city recorder nd ccompnied by the pproprite fee. It shll be the pplicnt's responsibility to submit complete ppliction tht ddresses the review criteri of this chpter. The City finds the pplicnt filed complete ppliction nd pid the fee.

99 Pge 98 of Criteri for pprovl Zone chnge proposls shll be pproved if the pplicnt provides evidence substntiting the following: A. The proposed zone is pproprite for the comprehensive pln lnd use designtion on the property nd is consistent with the description nd policies for the pplicble comprehensive pln lnd use clssifiction. FINDINGS: See the pplicnt s findings. The Comprehensive Pln designtion is n griculturl holding zone. But the site is intended for future development becuse the property is inside the Crlton Urbn Growth Boundry (UGB). The boundry ws dopted to ccommodte housing growth until The proposed zone chnge complies with the following Comprehensive Pln policies: Agriculturl conversion to urbn uses shll be done only when dequte public fcilities nd services re vilble to the re proposed for development. The City shll retin estblished griculturl zoned until griculturl lnds re needed for urbn uses. Development shll be encourged to utilize vcnt prcels of bypssed lnd in order to chieve more compct community. FINDINGS: Conversion of griculturl lnd on this site to residentil lnd is consistent with the City gol to only mke conversions when public fcilities nd service re vilble becuse ll services re vilble to the subject site. Further, the lnd is vcnt nd not in griculturl use. The Pln sttes development is encourged to utilize vcnt prcels tht my chieve more compct community. But development of other vcnt lnd tht my be closer to the town center is not vilble or is constrined by the high costs ssocited with extending urbn fcilities to those sites. Further there is no vcnt lnd zoned R-3. It cn lso be found tht the reltively smll geogrphic size of the Crlton UGB is in itself compct re. Crlton shll encourge business development tht retins, strengthens nd expnds the business bses in Crlton FINDINGS: Crlton hs served chiefly s retil nd service center supplying goods nd services for those living nd working in the surrounding re. The subject prcel is smll nd not suitble for griculturl use typicl in the re. The Community Home Builders hs been operting in the Willmette Vlley for over 28 yers, providing stble housing for more thn 600 people, including 300 children. They hve contributed over $32 million dollrs to the locl economy by prtnering with locl vendors, contrctors, nd suppliers, who hve helped to build more thn 200 ffordble homes. Their mission is investing in individuls, fmilies, nd rurl communities by developing ownership, equity, nd skills. They contribute to the locl economy by supporting locl businesses by contrcting with re vendors, contrctors, nd suppliers. To permit new developments only when ll urbn services become vilble including public wter, snitry sewers, storm dringe, solid wste collection, streets, prks nd recretion nd dequte police nd fire protection. The City shll encourge mix of housing types until the City s housing more closely resembles the preferred rtio of 75% single fmily to 25% multifmily.

100 Pge 99 of 120 Vrying lot sizes nd configurtions shll be encourged in order to provide for vriety of housing types, densities nd designs. Developble res which re most esily served by public fcilities nd services shll be identified nd promoted s priority development res. FINDINGS: The City finds tht ll urbn services re vilble to the site nd improvements to the streets nd utilities in the re will be mde by developer in the future. The zone chnge will provide opportunity for housing types plnned for but not being built in Crlton. The City hs not reched its gol to chieve housing mix rtio of 75% single fmily to 25% multi-fmily, or the gol to provide for vrying lot sizes nd configurtions to encourge vriety of housing types, densities nd designs. The City Housing Needs Anlysis in the Comprehensive Pln (2007) projected popultion of 2,379 by 2027 nd need for 233 dditionl dwellings units, or totl of 437 dwelling units. The 2018 popultion of 2,235 is pproching the projection, with 8 yers left. There re now n estimted 925 dwellings nd 27 prtments in Crlton. In the yer 2007 the housing mix ws 88% single fmily nd 12% multi-fmily housing. Tody it is n estimted 97% SF nd 3%MF. The mount of single fmily housing hs incresed significntly in the lst 11 yers, but the mount of multi-fmily housing hs not. The lrge increse in new homes built in the lst decde clerly indictes the city hs trended wy from the gol to chieve 75%/25% mix nd hs smller percentge of multi-fmily housing thn in The proposl will not dd new multi-fmily dwellings s tenttively designed, but will provide low income housing through the Community Homebuilders Builders ssocition with USDA. The City shll protect the function of existing or plnned rodwys nd rodwy corridors through the pproprite lnd use regultions. The locl street pln in the Trnsporttion System Pln shll be implemented by locl developments. The locl street pln identifies generl lignments of future locl streets nd mintins grid system whenever possible. Developers shll be required to follow the locl street pln. Flexibility is llowed only s the proposed modifictions still meet the integrity of the overll street pln nd circultion objectives. FINDINGS: This zone chnge nlysis describes the requirements of the Crlton TSP for plnned improvements to Roosevelt Street which will be required t the time of development. Prior City pprovl of the Rolling Hills subdivision nticipted the Roosevelt street extension s shown on the recorded subdivision plt. B. The uses permitted in the proposed zone cn be ccommodted on the proposed site without exceeding its physicl cpcity. FINDINGS: The City Engineer finds the proposed residentil lnd use cn be supplied with city services. Residentil use of the lnd will not exceed the cpcity of the vcnt prcel for eventul urbn residentil use. C. Allowed uses in the proposed zone cn be estblished in complince with the development requirements in this title. FINDINGS: The pplicnt hs illustrted how the site cn ccommodte 12 single nd duplex (ttched) residentil dwellings in ccordnce with the R-3 stndrds. The zone chnge does not

101 Pge 100 of 120 include pprovl specific development pln. Development detils will be considered by the Plnning Commission with public notice nd hering t lter dte. D. Adequte public fcilities, services, nd trnsporttion networks re in plce or re plnned to be provided concurrently with the development of the property. FINDINGS: The City Engineer s comments indicte there re dequte public services nd streets in plce to serve residentil use on the prcel. Public utility nd street network comments were provided by the Gordon Munro, Crlton City Engineer s follows: 1. Wter: There is n existing 8 wter line on Roosevelt St tht is looped, nd it hs fire hydrnt ner the intersection of Roosevelt St. nd First St. There is dequte cpcity to serve the proposed 12 units. 2. Snitry Sewer: There is n existing 8 grvity line on Roosevelt St. There is dequte cpcity to serve the proposed 12 units. 3. Storm Dringe: There re ctch bsins t either end of Roosevelt St. Modifictions to the system will be required, nd hve been proposed for the development. When the modifictions re mde there will be dequte cpcity for the proposed development. 4. Trnsporttion: Roosevelt St. hs currently been developed s hlf street. Modifictions would be required to mke this full street. These modifictions were proposed by the developer. This street would be dequte to serve the proposed development. 5. Trnsporttion: Currently there is one ccess to the development nd the potentil for second nd third ccess in the future. This would essentilly be cting s ded-end street until on-site street improvements re completed. A temporry turnround would be required. With temporry turn-round this street would be dequte to serve the proposed development. E. For residentil zone chnges, the criteri listed in the purpose sttement for the proposed zone shll be met. FINDINGS: The purpose of the Residentil-Medium High Density R-3) district is to provide for higher density housing in close proximity to substntil commercil nd public development where full urbn services re vilble. The R-3 district, which generlly ccommodtes residentil development of 8 to 32 units per cre, is consistent with the residentil comprehensive pln designtion. The pplicnt hs illustrted the site cn be developed within the prmeters of the R-3 zone purpose nd development stndrds. F. The following dditionl criteri shll be used to review ll nonresidentil chnges: 1. The supply of vcnt lnd in the proposed zone is indequte to ccommodte the projected rte of development of uses llowed in the zone during the next five yers, or the loction of the ppropritely zoned lnd is not physiclly suited to the prticulr uses proposed for the subject property, or lck site specific menities required by the proposed use; FINDINGS: The request is chnging nonresidentil griculturl holding zone to residentil zone, therefore this criterion pplies. See the pplicnt s findings. In ddition, stff finds there is no undeveloped lnd currently zoned R-3 to ccommodte the projected need for

102 Pge 101 of 120 Crlton to provide vriety of housing types nd tenures s described in the Comprehensive Pln. The site is suitble for the single nd duplex style housing becuse ll services re vilble nd it is within wlking distnce of downtown commercil uses, bout 5 blocks. The proposed pln by the pplicnt is less lnd intensive thn stndrd single0fmily subdivision, thus more ffordble 2. The proposed zone, if it llows uses more intensive thn other zones pproprite for the lnd use designtion, will not llow uses tht would destbilize the lnd use pttern of the re or significntly dversely ffect djcent properties. FINDINGS: The R-3 zone llows more intensive uses thn the R-1 nd AH zones djoining the site. However, the proposed homes by the pplicnt re low intensity dwellings including 5 single fmily homes nd 6 ttched dwellings in the form of 3 duplexes. The primry difference will be the nrrowness of the R-3 lot t 42 versus 75 for the R-1 lot. Nerby neighborhoods zoned R-2 nd mnufctured home dwellings re lso on smll lots, not dissimilr to the pplicnts proposed lots of squre feet. A zone chnge from griculturl to urbn residentil s plnned will chnge the existing lnd use pttern on Roosevelt Street. However, the urbn pttern hs not been completed becuse the subject prcel is vcnt nd unused. The prcel is plnned to be urbnized nd the timing of tht urbniztion is within the Crlton Comprehensive Pln projections for popultion nd housing growth to the yer The proposed development pttern will not destbilize or significntly dversely ffect djcent properties becuse the size of prcels nd homes re similr to existing dwellings in the re defined s Roosevelt south to Monroe nd Hwy 47 est to 2 nd Street. Development of the site will improve Roosevelt Street for existing nd new residents nd potentilly result in convenient connection to Hwy 47. VII. CONCLUSION City stff finds the proposl cn be supported by dequte findings in response to the pprovl criteri required in order for the Plnning Commission to forwrd recommendtion of pprovl to the City Council. VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OPTIONS: File # CPA.ZC19-01 CHB Zone Chnge: 1. I move to pprove the Zone Chnge bsed upon the findings in this stff report nd forwrd the recommendtion to City Council; or 2. I move to deny the Zone Chnge, stting how the ppliction does not meet ll of the pprovl criteri; or 3. I move to continue the hering to time certin dte.

103 Pge 102 of 120

104 Pge 103 of 120 Gomprehensive Pln AmendmenUZone Chnge Appliction City of Crlton LD\fy;ol Dte Fee No. Applicnt: titme Ymhill Community Development Corp. db Community Home Builders Miling Address P.O. Box NE 27th St. McMinnville or Phone Title Holder: Nme Ymhill.Community Development Corp. db Community Home Builders Miling Address P.O. Box NE 27th St- McMinnville, OR Loction: Street Address N/A lrsp 3 4 2tAA Deseription: Current Comprehensive Pln Designtion 3415 Proposed Zoning: Tx Lot 1,1unr5s1 300/800 current Zonins Agriculturl Holding (AH) R4 Proposed Gomprehensive Pln Designtion (if pplicble): AH Prerequisites: ln ccordnce with Crlton Development Code Section ^010, Comprehensive Pln AmendmenUZone Chnge ppliciion s re conducted s Tvpe lll procedure.the Plnning Commission will conduct public hering to consider the requeslnd -will mke recommendtion to the City Council. The City Council will conduct second public hering nd mke the finl locl decision on ihe request. To request hering nd pprovl of Zone Chnge/Comprehensive Pln Amendment, by the City Plnning Commission nd City Council, there shll be submitted to the City Recorder in ddition to this ppliction nd filing fee: E- A Site Pln BTz x 11 inches or multiples thereof in size illustrting the following informtion is ttched: 1. The dte, north point, scle nd sufficient description to define the loction nd boundries of the prcel(s) on which the Zone Chnge/Comprehensive Pln Amendment is proposed. Lst updted on Pge 2 of 5

105 Pge 104 of Nme nd ddress of ihe recorded owner or owners nd of the person who prepred the Site Pln. 3. For lnd djcent to nd for the site of the conditionl use show loctions, nmes nd existing widths of ll streets nd esements of wy; loctjon, width nd purpose of ll other ccess or utility esements; dringe wys; nd other significnt site fetures, 4. Outline nd loction of existing nd proposed buildings. Pln shll indicte existing setbck distnce from building to the properiy lines. 5. lndicte res of flooding, soil hzrd or res of steep slopes. The nmes nd ddresses of li prq,perty owqers within 100 feet of the_proqgrty bound ries, s shown on the lst preceding tx roll of the YmtrifiCountyAssessor. Note: A list of property owner nmes nd ddresses within 100 feet of the property my be obtined from title compny or the Ymhill County Assessor Deprtment locted t: 535 NE srh Street, Room 42, McMinnville, OR, phone: $Aq $ A legl description of the property subject to the zone chngeicomprehensive Pln mendment. A detiled description of the proposed Zone Ghnge/comprehensive Pln mendment -[ nd specificlly how it ddresses ech nd every Criteri for Approvlfrom Development Code Section lt is the sole responsibility of the pplicnt to provide dequte evidence upon which the Plnning Gommission nd Gity Council cn bse decision ,050 Griteri for Approvl Zone chnge proposls my be pproved if tle pplicnt provides evidence substntiting the following: A. The proposed zone is pproprite for the Comprehensive Pln lnd use designtion on the property nd is consistent with the descriplion nd policies for the pplicble Comprehensive Pln lnd use clssifiction. B. The uses permitted in the proposed zone cn be ccomrnodted on the proposed site withoul exceeding its physiclcpcity. C. Allowed uses in the proposed zone cn be estblished in complince with the development requirements in this Ordinnce. D. Adequte public fcilities, services, nd lrnsporttion networks re in plce or re plnned to be provided concurrently with the development of the property. E. For residentil zone chnges, the crileri listed in the purpose sttement for the proposed zone shll be met, F, The following dditionl criteri shll be used to review llzone chnges: 1. The supply of vcnt lnd in the proposed zone is indequte to ccommodte the projected rte of development of uses llowed in the zone during the next 5 yers, or the loction of the ppropritoly zoned lnd is not physiclly suited to the prticulr uses proposed for the subject property, or lck site specific menities required by the proposed use. Lst updted on Pge 3 of 5

106 Pge 105 of 120 lil 2, The proposed zone, if it llows uses more intensive thn other zones pproprite for the lnd use designtion, will not llow uses tht would destbilize the lnd use pttern of the re or significntly dversely ffect djcent properties. One (1) pper copy nd one (1) electronic copy (PDF formt prefened) of this ppliction nd ll of the ppliction ltchments- Copies must be cler nd legible. Gonditions of Approvl : As specified by Development Code Section (l), pprovl of Type ll or Ty.pe tll ction my be grnted subject to conditions, The following limittions shll be pplicble to conditionl pprovls: 1. Conditions shll be designed to protect public helth, sfety nd generl welfre from potentildverse impcts cused by proposed lnd use described in n ppliction. Gondilions shll be relted to the following:. Protection of the public from the potentilly deleterious effects of the proposed use; or b. Fulfillment of the need for public service demnds creted by the proposed use. 2. Chnges or ltertions of conditions shll be processed s new dministrtive ction. 3. All conditions of pprovl required by the City for Type ll or Type lll pprovl shll be completed prior to the issunce of building permits, except tht the Plnning Commission my stipulte tht some conditions be completed prior to issunce of building occupncy permits when the former is imprcticl. When n pplicnt provides informtion demonstrtlng to the stisfction of the Plnning Commission tht it is not prcticl to fulfill ll conditions prior to issunce of building permit, the pplicnt must complete performnce gurntee for required improvements pursunt to CDC Chpter Lst updted on O Pge 4 of 5

107 Pge 106 of 120 I HEREBY CERTIFYTHAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN, ALONG V1IITH THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED, ARE IN ALL RE$PECTS TRUE AND GORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF- Dud Applicnt's Signture Title Holder's / Dudlev Title ntu M Dte NoTEr ALL OWNERS MUST SIGN THIS APPLICATION OR SUBMIT LETTERS OF CONSENT. INCOMPLETE OR MISSING INFORMATION MAY DELAYTHE APPROVAL PROCESS. Lst updted on Pge 5 of 5

108 Pge 107 of 120 1/23/2019 Job # d Community Home Builders Project: North Prcel, Rolling Hills Subdivision, Crlton, OR Roosevelt St, Rolling Hills Subdivision, Crlton, OR Owner Miling Address: PO Box 1193, 2195 NE 27th St., McMinnville, OR Memo RE: Zone Chnge Appliction - Criteri Nrrtive Memo To: (vi emil) Dudley Frost, CHB Bord Member, nd Chris Teichroew, Executive Director Crlton Municipl Code Provisions re in bold itlics. Owner nrrtive response is norml font, with some bold nd underline for emphsis Criteri for pprovl. Zone chnge proposls shll be pproved if the pplicnt provides evidence substntiting the following: A. The proposed zone is pproprite for the comprehensive pln lnd use designtion on the property nd is consistent with the description nd policies for the pplicble comprehensive pln lnd use clssifiction. Comprehensive pln designtion of prcel: AH, Agriculturl Holding. Description nd policies: Crlton Gol 3 pplies to the AH lnds within the city, which "hve been determined to be necessry for the future urbniztion of the City beyond the yer 2017." (Crlton Comprehensive Pln, 2009, Pge 1-5). AG lnd is n interim lnd use within the urbn growth boundry. "Gol 1. To preserve the economic livelihood of the frmer by preserving prime griculturl lnd for frming. Policies 1. Agriculturl lnd conversion to urbn uses shll be done only when dequte public fcilities nd services re vilble to the re(s) proposed for development. 2. The City shll retin estblished griculturl holding zones until griculturl lnds re needed for urbn uses. 3. The City shll encourge Ymhill County to restrict commercil nd residentil development outside the Crlton Urbn Growth Boundry." (Crlton Comprehensive Pln, 2009, Gol 3, Pge 1-5). Proposed zone is pproprite in terms of the comprehensive pln becuse: The prcel of lnd is currently within the city limits nd urbn growth boundry. Converting this prcel from griculturl to residentil will meet policy 3. The prcel of lnd is djcent to Residentil lnd in the comprehensive pln, directly cross Roosevelt St. from developed subdivision, nd hs dequte public fcilities nd services (utilities nd street) for the proposed chnge. Chnging the designtion from griculturl to residentil would llow development of n infill property. Property owner hs n greement to deed lnd outside of the development re to the neighboring owner for griculturl frming. This re is round Hwn Creek (floodplin) nd to the est, meeting the gol of preserving prime griculturl lnd for frming, nd policy 1, becuse the re est of Hwn Creek is pst the current est end of Roosevelt St. nd instlled utilities. Adding Residentil lnd to the city for the purpose of developing low nd moderte income, ffordble, owneroccupied housing, will meet Crlton Gol 10, policies 6b nd 6c, to develop mix of housing types, densities nd designs. (Crlton Comprehensive Pln, 2009, Gol 10, Pge 1-25). This will lso help meet the projected dditionl dwelling units needed in Crlton (bsed on Tbles 24-26, Crlton Comprehensive Pln, 2009, Pges 2-50, 51). B. The uses permitted in the proposed zone cn be ccommodted on the proposed site without exceeding its physicl cpcity. Becuse: Existing neighborhood hs 2 street ccesses now, which complies with requirements including proposed residentil development of this prcel. New stormwter retention/detention nd/or on-site tretment will be seprte from previous built subdivision. This will be new bioswles locted long north side of Roosevelt, nd/or extension of swles to Hwn Creek. Pge 1 of 2 2

109 Pge 108 of 120 Floodplin: FEMA mp shows floodplin zone round Hwn Creek, but not on proposed buildble site. The new development will not ffect the floodplin zone, no net fill ner Hwn Creek. Civil engineer expects nd will justify tht existing sewer nd wter supplies will serve existing nd proposed residentil improvements. Property dimensions re pproprite for single fmily nd common wll residentil units. Existing zoning: AG llows 1 single fmily house on existing 2.05 cre prcel. R1 zoning would llow up to 8 detched single fmily houses. R2 is typiclly only pplied in Crlton to corner lots for duplexes. Proposed R3 zoning hs the flexibility for higher density (smller lots) development of housing, including detched single fmily housing, ttched single fmily housing (townhomes) nd multifmily rentl housing. Property owner Community Home Builders proposes to develop ffordble owner-occupied housing through the USDA Self-Help Housing progrm with 12 single fmily homes on seprte lots, both detched nd ttched homes. C. Allowed uses in the proposed zone cn be estblished in complince with the development requirements in this title. Becuse: Proposed use is llowed in R3 zone. Development requirements in cn be met on this site, including lot re, setbcks, off-street prking, nd lot coverge. D. Adequte public fcilities, services, nd trnsporttion networks re in plce or re plnned to be provided concurrently with the development of the property. Becuse: Existing neighborhood hs 2 street ccesses now, which complies with requirements. New stormwter retention/detention nd on-site tretment will be seprte from previous built subdivision. New bioswles will be locted long north side of Roosevelt. Civil engineer expects nd will justify tht existing sewer nd wter supplies will serve existing nd proposed residentil improvements. Future connection of Roosevelt St, cross proposed ril tril on west side of prcel, is expected in the future. The ril tril property is currently owned by Ymhill County, however the tril doesn't hve forml pln for development or pln for who will py for the future street crossing for the tril. With development of this prcel, full 71 collector street right of wy will be improved to complete Roosevelt St. long the project. This will set the stge for future collector street extension est. Current lnd uses include griculture on two sides nd the fire sttion west of the ril tril. E. For residentil zone chnges, the criteri listed in the purpose sttement for the proposed zone shll be met. Becuse: Per 17.28: Residentil Medium-High Density district is intended for loctions in close proximity to commercil nd public development where full urbn services re vilble. The prcel loction is bout 4-6 city blocks from the Crlton commercil core, vi the future ril tril or the current street system, where there is commercil development, public trnsit, public prk nd public swimming pool. The proposed prcel is within the urbn growth boundry. Density gol is 8-32 units per cre. Proposed zone chnge development will hve 8.5 units per cre (1.41 cres, 12 units), thus meeting the density gol. See ttched Crlton Zoning pln showing existing nd proposed R3 zoned prcels. Proposed zone chnge will dd to limited R3 zoned prcels. The existing R3 prcels include two res of neighborhoods with primrily single fmily homes locted close to center of town, n re on the south side of town not yet developed, nd one lot ner the school. F. The following dditionl criteri shll be used to review ll nonresidentil chnges: Not pplicble to this residentil zone chnge proposl. 1. The supply of vcnt lnd in the proposed zone is indequte to ccommodte the projected rte of development of uses llowed in the zone during the next five yers, or the loction of the ppropritely zoned lnd is not physiclly suited to the prticulr uses proposed for the subject property, or lck site specific menities required by the proposed use; 2. The proposed zone, if it llows uses more intensive thn other zones pproprite for the lnd use designtion, will not llow uses tht would destbilize the lnd use pttern of the re or significntly dversely ffect djcent properties. End of Memo. Pge 2 of 2 2

110 Pge 109 of 120 Existing R3 Zoning west of downtown Existing single fmily homes. Potentil ner term B&B properties. Close to trnsporttion. Existing R3 Zoning center of town existing single fmily homes. Close to trnsporttion. Existing single fmily homes nd church. Long term higher density use. Proposed North Rezoning 1.4 cres within city limits Existing utilities support development. Fewer drivewy openings to collector street. Completes ner term residentil lnd use. South R3, MX zoning, Clevelnd St. South edge of town. Complex ccess problems. High costs on nd off site. South R3 zoning, Hrrison St. In developed R1 single fmily neighborhood. Ner school. Duplex potentil only. No neighborhood R3 potentil. Community Home Builders office: 2195 NE 27th St, McMinnville, OR mil: PO Box 1193, McMinnville, OR Crlton North Roosevelt Property Reference North No. Description Dte Crlton R3 Zoning Digrm Project number Dte d 11/12/2018 A1.3 Scle 1" = 50'-0" 3

111 Pge 110 of 120 3/27/2019 Job # d Community Home Builders Project: North Prcel, Rolling Hills Subdivision, Crlton, OR Roosevelt St, Rolling Hills Subdivision, Crlton, OR Owner Miling Address: PO Box 1193, 2195 NE 27th St., McMinnville, OR Supplementl Memo to Criteri Nrrtive, Zone chnge ppliction Memo To: (vi emil) Aimee Amerson (merson@ci.crlton.or.us); Crole Connell (connellpc@comcst.net); Dudley Frost, CHB Bord Member, nd Chris Teichroew, Executive Director Crlton Municipl Code Provisions re in bold itlics. Owner nrrtive response is norml font, with some bold nd underline for emphsis. The purpose of this supplementl memo is to ddress Criteri F, determined to be pplicble to this ppliction becuse the current property AG zoning is nonresidentil. F. The following dditionl criteri shll be used to review ll nonresidentil chnges: 1. The supply of vcnt lnd in the proposed zone is indequte to ccommodte the projected rte of development of uses llowed in the zone during the next five yers, or the loction of the ppropritely zoned lnd is not physiclly suited to the prticulr uses proposed for the subject property, or lck site specific menities required by the proposed use; 2. The proposed zone, if it llows uses more intensive thn other zones pproprite for the lnd use designtion, will not llow uses tht would destbilize the lnd use pttern of the re or significntly dversely ffect djcent properties. 1. The supply of vcnt lnd in the proposed zone is indequte to ccommodte the projected rte of development of uses llowed in the zone during the next five yers, or the loction of the ppropritely zoned lnd is not physiclly suited to the prticulr uses proposed for the subject property, or lck site specific menities required by the proposed use; Refer to Crlton R3 Zoning Digrm showing existing nd this proposed R3 zoned prcels within Crlton city limits. o The existing R3 prcels include two res of neighborhoods with primrily existing seprtely owned single fmily homes locted close to center of town (not vilble for ner term multi-fmily residentil development), n re on the south side of town not yet developed (complex ccess problems), nd one smll lot ner the school (lot size pproprite for duplex, surrounded by developed single fmily housing). Adding Residentil lnd to the city for the purpose of developing low nd moderte income, ffordble, owneroccupied housing, will meet Crlton Comprehensive Pln Gol 10, policies 6b nd 6c, to develop mix of housing types, densities nd designs. (Crlton Comprehensive Pln, 2009, Gol 10, Pge 1-25). Adding Residentil lnd to the city for the purpose of developing low nd moderte income, ffordble, owneroccupied housing will help meet the projected dditionl dwelling units needed in Crlton (bsed on Tbles 24-26, Crlton Comprehensive Pln, 2009, Pges 2-50, 51). Proposed R3 zoning on the prcel north of Roosevelt St. provides the flexibility for higher density (smller lots) development of housing, including detched single fmily housing, ttched single fmily housing (townhomes) nd multifmily rentl housing. 2. The proposed zone, if it llows uses more intensive thn other zones pproprite for the lnd use designtion, will not llow uses tht would destbilize the lnd use pttern of the re or significntly dversely ffect djcent properties. The proposed R3 zone llows more intensive development thn djcent R1 properties. The proposed development on this prcel will complete the existing neighborhood development without dversely ffecting djcent properties in significnt mnner. The proposed rezoning prcel of lnd is djcent to Residentil lnd in the comprehensive pln, directly north cross Roosevelt St. from developed subdivision zoned R1. Pge 1 of 2

112 Pge 111 of 120 o There re 4 developed lots on the south side of Roosevelt St., ddresses 153, 163, 173 nd 183. Ech lot is developed to minimum R1 stndrds: Lot re 7500 squre feet minimum. The developed lots rnge in size from 7566 to 8017 squre feet. Minimum lot width line: 75'. Ech existing lot is 75' wide, lthough 183 hs n ngled west property line tht provides more thn 75' width t the front building line. Front setbcks re 20' grge nd house, 15' to covered porch. Side setbcks re 5', rer setbcks re 15' o Proposed R3 zoning hs the sme or wider setbck requirements s R1. o Proposed R3 zoning requirements for lot re nd lot width llow the development of 12 lots on the north prcel rther thn limited to 5-6 lots for R1 zoning due to minimum 75' lot width. o The north prcel proposed for rezoning is 132' deep, compred with 100' - 104' deep lots on south side of Roosevelt St. Property owner Community Home Builders is the originl developer of the single fmily detched housing neighborhood south of the property with proposed zone chnge. o The existing neighborhood hs dequte ccess nd utilities for the proposed R3 development. CHB proposes to develop ffordble owner-occupied housing through the USDA Self-Help Housing progrm with 12 single fmily homes on seprte lots, both detched nd ttched homes. CHB typiclly nd most effectively works with neighbor groups of 9-13 households for ech group in the Self-Help Housing progrm. End of Memo. Pge 2 of 2

113 Pge 112 of 120 4

114 Pge 113 of 120

115 Pge 114 of 120

116 15' - 0" rer sb Pge 115 of ' - 0" 32' - 0" 42' - 0" 148' - 0" 42' - 0" 32' - 0" 32' - 0" 42' - 0" 148' - 0" 42' - 0" 32' - 0" 32' - 0" 42' - 0" 132' - 8" 180' elevtion Ymhels Tril RR bed 11' - 0" dded ROW dediction ' - 0" front setbck Zone R3 Setbcks Front: Side: 7' Rer: 15' 7' - 0" side sb ' to building 20' to fce of grge 7' - 0" 7' - 0" ' - 0" 27' - 11" 30' - 0" 41' - 0" 25' - 0" ' - 11" 18 S ' - 0" sidewlk Existing street centerline. 14' - 0" bioswle, curb, gutter Proposed new ROW, meets April 2009 street stndrds nd mkes room for bioswle swle plnters. N. Roosevelt Street Roosevelt St. Existing edge of street pvement New edge of street pvement 441' - 11" 19 6' Sidewlk Overll North Property re: Originl 89,103 sf or 2.05 cres (excludes Roosevelt St extension est of Hwn Creek). Less 11' Roosevelt dediction: 82,574 sf or 1.90 cres Less est property deed trnsfer: 61,297 or 1.41 cres ' - 11" 45' - 0" 20' - 0" ' - 0" Existing ROW (right of wy) H 9 27' - 0" Y D sf Michelwood 1-story 3-bedroom Grge 20' - 0" privte drivewy Shred portion of drivewy. 30' - 6" 25' - 0" 25' - 0" S Grge 1400 sf 2-story, 3 bedroom common-wll End of existing street development N. First St. 48' - 0" Grge privte drivewy privte drivewy 20' - 0" 20' - 0" 24' - 0" 12 PT = sf Michelwood 2-story 4-bedroom sidewlk Grge D D building setbcks property line ' Dringe Single fmily lots 9 nd 12: 132'-8" x ' 5572 sf lot re > 4000 sf 9+00 minimum OK Lot width 42' > 40' minimum. OK Lot Coverge: building only 1632 sf or 29% < 40% OK pvement only 313 sf or 6% < 30% OK combined 1945 sf or 35% < 70% OK 15' PUBLIC STORM DRAIN EASEMENT 43.86' BIO Existing nturl dringe swle, considered close to hed of Hwn Creek. Deed to be trnsferred for property est of lot 12 nd north of Roosevelt St., including existing dringe, to be deeded from current owner to neighboring lndowner. (keep n esement for storm wter dringe ccess) 160 Lot clcultions 9-12 Propose dediction to city of ROW for future N. Roosevelt St. est of Hwn Creek 75.19' TRACT 'B' 12.50' 2.50' 164 Bsed on Crlton zone R3 Attched townhome dwelling, lots 10 nd 11: 132'-8" x 32' 3533 sf lot re > 2400 sf min. OK (4245 lot re less 712 sf street stub) Lot width 32' > 24' min. OK Lot Coverge: building only 1160 sf or 33% < 40%. OK pvement 870 sf or 25% < 30% OK combined 2030 sf or 57% < 70% OK. 0' 25' 50' 100' 200' Community Home Builders office: 2195 NE 27th St, McMinnville, OR mil: PO Box 1193, McMinnville, OR info@communityhomebuilders.org Crlton North Roosevelt Property Preliminry Not for Construction 1 Site Pln 1" = 50'-0" No. Description Dte Site Pln Project number Dte d 11/9/2018 Reference North Preliminry design for ppliction for rezoning site. Existing site bsed on survey nd civil engineer drwings over 10 yers old. All work will need to be verified with updted survey, civil engineer design, nd city review comments. Bsed on Architect's review of Crlton Development Code, chnging zone to R3 will llow dwelling units on this property. Scle A1.1 1" = 50'-0" 5

117 18+00 Pge 116 of ' - 8" Ymhels Tril RR bed House House Grge Grge House House House House Grge Grge House House House House House 162 House setbcks Dringe 164 Grge Grge Grge 170 Grge setbcks property line Roosevelt St. Shred portion of drivewy. 24' - 0" sidewlk S 174 N. Roosevelt Street S ' 12.50' 2.50' ' - 11" H Y D End of existing street development D D ' PUBLIC STORM DRAIN EASEMENT 9+00 Zone R3 Setbcks Front: Side: 7' Rer: 15' 15' to building 20' to fce of grge N. First St ' 75.19' 18 PT = BIO TRACT 'B' 1 Site Pln with Homes 1" = 50'-0" Reference North Community Home Builders office: 2195 NE 27th St, McMinnville, OR mil: PO Box 1193, McMinnville, OR info@communityhomebuilders.org Crlton North Roosevelt Property 0' 25' 50' 100' 200' Preliminry Not for Construction No. Description Dte Preliminry design for ppliction for rezoning site. Existing site bsed on survey nd civil engineer drwings over 10 yers old. All work will need to be verified with updted survey, civil engineer design, nd city review comments. Bsed on Architect's review of Crlton Development Code, chnging zone to R3 on this property. Site Pln with Homes Project number Dte d 11/9/2018 Scle A1.2 1" = 50'-0" 5b

118 Pge 117 of 120 6

119 Pge 118 of 120 7

120 Pge 119 of 120 7