short-term residential rental uses - amazon web services · 2016-11-04 · short-term residential...
TRANSCRIPT
Short-term Residential Rental Uses
Feedback Summary
CHPD, Planning Division
November 29, 2016
Short-term residential rental outreach overview
• Three data points– Online feedback form
– Public meeting
– Commissions and other groups
(not included in this presentation)
2
Online feedback - who responded?
379 respondents as of close of form on Nov. 15, 2016
3
Arlington resident
99%
Not an Arlington resident
1%
Feedback Form Analysis as of closing of form on 11/15/2016
Own82%
Rent18%
Single-family detached
house67%
Duplex, semidetached or two-family
house4%
Townhouse8%
Multiple-family
buildling (low-rise or high-
rise)21%
379 respondents as of close of form on Nov. 15, 2016
4
Online feedback – who responded?
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
I am anArlingtonresident
I am interestedin hosting an
accessoryhomestay
I am a hotelowner/manager
in Arlington
I am anapartmentbuilding
owner/managerin Arlington
I am a hotel orapartment
owner/manageroutside ofArlington
I live in anotherjurisdiction andam following
this process inArlington
I workin/represent thehome sharing
industry
Other
Feedback Form Analysis as of closing of form on 11/15/2016
5
Online feedback - general comments
Support for allowing accessory homestays• Supplemental income
• Community building
• Cultural exchange
• Revenue and tourist generator
Opposition to allowing accessory homestays• Concerns with impacts (trash, noise, loss of neighbor familiarity)
• Commercial lodging already available
• This type of commercial use not appropriate in residential areas/buildings
Opposition to regulating accessory homestay • Challenges of enforcement
• Property owners should be able to use their property in any way they choose
• Use already occurring with minimal impacts
Feedback Form Analysis as of closing of form on 11/15/2016
Online feedback: Zoning districts and unit types
6
Comments
Single-family neighborhoods
• Not appropriate for accessory homestays
• Concerns about encroachment of commercial lodging and associated impacts into residential areas
Multiple-family neighborhoods
• Should be up to HOA
• Should not impact surrounding areas
• Should preclude investors from taking over a building for short term use
Allow in all zoning districts
• Owner-occupancy is most important consideration
• Property owners should be able to use their property in any way they choose
• In what types of residential dwellings and neighborhoods should
accessory homestays be allowed? (check all that apply)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Single-family detachedhouses
Townhouses Duplexes, semidetachedor two-family
Multiple-family (low, midor high-rise) within
residentialneighborhoods
Multiple-family (low, midor high-rise) within
mixed-useneighborhoods (egRosslyn-Ballston,Jefferson-Davis or
Columbia Pike corridors)
None of the above(accessory hoemstaysshould not be allowed)
Feedback Form Analysis as of closing of form on 11/15/2016
Online feedback: Proportion of unit
7
Comments
Partial rentals
• Allows for monitoring of guest behavior
• Consistent with other home
occupations
Entire dwelling rentals
• Eliminates sofa rental and/or renting
multiple rooms
• Easier to enforce
• Allows for renting while on vacation
Both should be allowed
• Flexibility is preferred
• Partial rental may be more appropriate
for single-family home than condo unit
• In what manner should accessory homestays be allowed (check all
that apply)?
240
242
244
246
248
250
252
254
Short-term rental of an entiredwelling
Short-term rental of a portionof a dwelling
Feedback Form Analysis as of closing of form on 11/15/2016
Online feedback: parking
• How many off-street parking spaces should
be required?
8
• For what types of dwelling units should
parking be required (check all that apply)?
Comments
Require parking
• Parking is already a problem
• On-street parking should not be
allowed for this use
• Restrict vehicles owned by the host
• Require parking near Metro where
on-street parking is scarce
• Require parking where RPP program
is in effect
Do not require parking
• Successful units will be near transit
• Utilize on-street parking
• RPP program manages parking
supply
• Encourage public and shared transit
options
None57%
One, for some
dwelling types43%
Single
Family
Detached
Townhouse Multiple-
family
served by
Metro
Multiple-
family
served by
Frequent
Bus
Duplex/semi-
detached/two-
family
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Feedback Form Analysis as of closing of form on 11/15/2016
Online feedback: creation of additional parking
• Other home occupations prohibit, once the home occupation is
approved, the creation of any additional parking spaces that did not
exist at the time of approval.
– Should a homeowner be allowed to create an additional off-street parking
space (subject to all applicable regulations) after an application is
approved?
9
Comments
• Any new parking should
conform to all requirements
• Paving of properties is a
concern
Yes56%
No44%
Feedback Form Analysis as of closing of form on 11/15/2016
Online feedback: owner occupancy and primary residency
10
• How many days/year should constitute primary residency?
Comments
Require owner-occupancy
• Owner-occupancy assures neighborhood
stability
• Owner should be on premise during rental
• Require minimum occupancy prior to eligibility
Do not require owner-occupancy
• Many have employment that necessitates
being away
• Long-term renters should be eligible
Require less than 6 months
• 6 months is consistent with IRS and State
requirements
• Consider military and diplomatic families
6 months
(185 days)50%
7 months
5%
8 months
5%
9 months
(275 days)40%
Feedback Form Analysis as of closing of form on 11/15/2016
Online feedback: Multiple-family building cap
• What, if any, should the limit be on the number of units within any
individual multiple-family building that can be approved for an
accessory homestay?
11
Comments
Do not require a cap
• Condominiums have their own
ability to limit
• Artificially limits market in each
building
• Difficult to enforce
Require a cap
• Too many units changes character
of building
• Too many units could impact
purchaser financing and insurance
• Cap to maintain supply for full-time
residents
Restrict to 0-25%
No more than 25% of the
units46%
No more than 50%
of the units9%
No more than 75% of
the units0%
No limit45%
Feedback Form Analysis as of closing of form on 11/15/2016
Online feedback: Number of lodgers
12
Comments
Considerations for
number of lodgers
• Children should not be
counted
• Use definition of
family/regulations for
maximum occupancy
• Do not allow party
houses
• Proposed number
seems appropriate
• Dwelling size
• Unit and building types
• Fire code
requirements
No limit should be set
• Owner should be able
to decide
• How many lodgers should be allowed?
Feedback Form Analysis as of closing of form on 11/15/2016
012%
11%
29%
32%
47%
51%
612%
81%
121%
No limit14%
It depends3%
2 per BR maximum of 6
5%
2 per BR plus 2%
2 per BR26%
Other3%
2 per BR with a maximum
2%
Online feedback: Accessory dwellings
• Should an accessory homestay be allowed in accessory dwellings?
13
Comments
Allow in accessory dwellings
• Units are already have required
standards, so most appropriate
for short-term rental
• Offer more flexibility than
standard lease
• Either unit appropriate if owner
on premises
• Limit occupancy to 2 or fewer
Do not allow in accessory
dwellings
• Use of accessory dwellings for
short-term rental is not
appropriate
Yes, in the main dwelling
3%
Yes, in the accessory dwelling
6%
Yes, both of the above66%
No25%
Feedback Form Analysis as of closing of form on 11/15/2016
Online feedback: Family/caregiver suites
• Should the family/caregiver suite regulations be revised to allow use
of a family/caregiver suite for an accessory homestay?
14
Comments
Allow in family/caregiver suites
• A well-suited space for this use
• Allow when caregiver is not there
Do not allow in family/caregiver suites
• These suites have a specific purpose
and should only be allowed to be used
for that purpose
• This provision should be revised to
address other needs for its intended
purpose, but should not be revised to
fit another purpose
Yes66%
No34%
Feedback Form Analysis as of closing of form on 11/15/2016
Online feedback: Food service
15
Comments
Do not regulate food service
• Food service should not be
addressed
• Difficulty of enforcement
• Community building
opportunity
Food service should not be
allowed
• Food service changes the
use to a boarding house,
B&B, or hotel
• Food service subject to
additional regulation
• Should an accessory homestay host be allowed to prepare and/or
serve food to lodgers?
No34%
Only packaged
snacks should be
allowed to be provided (eg
prezels, candy, water,
etc.)11%
Only breakfast should be allowed to be served
15%
All meals should be
allowed to be served
40%
Feedback Form Analysis as of closing of form on 11/15/2016
Online feedback: Accessory homestay permit and
revocation
16
Comments
Application process and
renewal
• Neighborhood comments
or complaints should be
considered in reissue
• If revoked, no permit
should be reissued
• Need to define
“substantiated complaint”
No permit needed
• Unnecessary burden
• Should be streamlined
• How long should a permit be valid before it has to be renewed
(through submittal of a new application in order to update
contact information, etc.)?
• If an accessory homestay permit is revoked, how long do you
think the waiting period should be before a homeowner could
apply for an accessory homestay again?
One year42%
Two years58%
One year52%
Two years48%
Feedback Form Analysis as of closing of form on 11/15/2016
Public Meeting
• 34 participants
• Format presented the same questions as posed in the on-line
feedback form
• Majority of general comments focused on positive attributes of
accessory homestays and questions about need to regulate
17
Public Meeting
18
Element Summary of Feedback
Zoning districts Even distribution of support for all districts; only two dots for “no
homestays”
Area of dwelling unit used Most in favor of entire dwelling; also support for allowing both
ParkingMost in favor of no parking requirement; majority in favor of
permission to add another space if needed
Owner-occupancy and
primary residence
Most in favor of 9-month residency requirement; also support
for no owner-occupancy requirement
Cap Most in favor of no cap
Maximum number of guests Most in favor of allowing more than 6 lodgers
Accessory dwellings Most in favor of use of accessory dwellings
Family/ caregiver suites Most in favor of use of family/caregiver suites
Food and beverages Most in favor of allowing all meals
Accessory homestay permit Even distribution in support of 1 or 2 years
Revocation of accessory
dwelling permitSlightly more support for 1-year waiting period