HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-29 - Agendas - Final
Ordinance Review Commitee
November 29, 2023; 5:30 PM
Commitee Chair: Councilmember Hertzberg
Commitee Members: Councilmember Berna, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Moore
Staff: Jonathan Curth, Blake Pennington, Hannah Hungate
Mee�ng Loca�on: City Hall Room 326
Virtual Atendance: htps://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_uKmsn8gARuOMaYlv6QwI5w
Webinar ID: 844 5547 6289
Welcome and Introduc�ons- 5:30 PM
Approval of Minutes
1. September 13, 2023
2. November 1, 2023
Commitee Business – Short Term Rentals
1. Host Compliance follow-up
2. Density parameters
3. Update on STR permits currently under review
4. Update on violation notices to noncompliant STRs
Announcements
1. Next committee meeting?
Adjourn
MINUTES
Ordinance Review Committee Meeting
Wednesday, September 13, 2023
Hybrid – Room 326 and Zoom
1. The Ordinance Review Committee met in person and by Zoom in City Hall Room 326.
Council Members Hertzberg and Moore were present in person. Council Members Jones
and Berna joined by Zoom.
2. Old Business: The only item of old business on the Committee’s agenda was the discussion
on short-term rentals (STRs).
a. Issue #2(a) – due process procedure to shut off water to noncompliant STRs
Kit Williams referenced a memo he produced prior to the meeting which explains the
current due process procedure and suggests language for shutting off utilities to unlicensed
STRs. Revoking an STR license would require a due process hearing in front of staff. The
City probably does not have to give due process for STRs who never applied for a license
or CUP, but it would be worth creating a procedure (like the one set out in the memo).
Jonathan Curth indicated that, though this procedure could add days to the process between
violation and shut off, it does provide the due process procedure the Council sought. Blake
Pennington further pointed out that, even if the due process procedure added days to the
water shutoff process, it would still be far quicker in forcing compliance than referring the
case to the prosecutor.
Councilmember Moore asked what process would be used to establish with certainty that
an STR is unlicensed. Jonathan explained that, though Staff uses outside consultants to
gather data, there is a need for municipal verification of the consultant’s work. There is
always room for error, and the burden is ultimately on the City to ensure evidence is sound.
Councilmember Moore asked how the City would confirm a report from the outside
consultant that an STR is noncompliant. Jonathan explained that a third-party consultant
plays the role of the resident complainant. The resident would be subpoenaed at trial, and
the City would independently verify the violation. So would be with the consultant. Kit
added that the City still counts on neighbors to take photos and report violations to the City.
The prosecutor’s office can investigate as well and provide Jonathan with evidence needed
for administrative procedures.
Councilmember Berna expressed that he would air on the side of due process because it
cannot hurt to have procedures in place, and it is still shorter than the prosecution process.
Page 2 of 7
Councilmember Moore indicated that community members have expressed frustration with
the lack of enforcement on weekends. Kit stated that residents have undertaken this
weekend enforcement role before by providing the City with documentation. It is also
much easier to prove that an STR is operating without a license at all, and Kit has
confidence that the Chief of Staff can/will examine each case, give the STR an opportunity
to explain themselves, but also ensure a quick resolution.
Public Comment:
Tom Overbey expressed agreement with the Council’s sentiments.
Further Committee Discussion:
Jonathan raised the issue of reconnection fees following water shut off to STRs. The Utility
Department gives residents a past due notice with their bill and charges a $35 reconnection
fee. Jonathan wondered what the City’s parameters would be to reconnect water. Kit
indicated that the rental could show they were now a long-term rental or whatever other
result the Chief of Staff would believe sufficient to show compliance with the Code.
Councilmember Moore asked if the City must keep the reconnection fee the same for
noncompliant STRs as for citizens who did not pay their bill. Kit was hesitant to add
additional fees exclusive to noncompliant STRs. The goal is to get rentals into compliance,
rather than to make money. Councilmember Moore pointed out that, if the reconnection
fee was low, some might simply build it into their margins as a price of operating. Kit
responded that the termination of water is a strong deterrent, and there are already serious
charges if the STR attempts to turn the water back on by themselves.
Councilmember Berna asked if the City could face legal jeopardy if it sends disciplinary
notices to noncompliant STRs who have no way of becoming compliant because the cap
has been met. Kit did not believe so, as the owner could simply operate a long-term rental.
There is no absolute right to operate an STR, and the current ordinance is sound.
Councilmember Berna moved to forward the proposed due process procedure for to
City Council for approval. Chair Hertzberg seconded. Councilmembers Berna, Jones,
and Chair Hertzberg all voted in favor. Councilmember Moore abstained. The motion was
passed.
b. Issue #2(b) – estimated costs of forcing unlicensed STRs into compliance
Jonathan stated that the process for forcing unlicensed STRs into compliance could be
purely in-house or a combination of in-house and employing a third-party consultant. The
City has spent $20,000 to $30,000 hiring Granicus to scrape the internet for data on STRs
operating within the City and compare it to City licenses issued for STRs. The fees
incurred by the City vary largely based on the case, but for a clear-cut violation, the
estimated costs are as follows:
Page 3 of 7
Step What it Entails Cost to the City
Enforcement
Identifying noncompliant STRs
Investigating
Issuing a license
$150
CUP
Processing application
Working with applicant
Planning review
Ensuring permit is issued
$520
Business License
Processing application
Building safety inspection
Ensuring HMR docs are correct
Zoning review
$130 – $140
Overall City costs to get an STR into compliance
(if a license is available) ~$750
Kit indicated that this not something the Council can apply now because there would have
to be a more rigorous fee study, potentially from an outside consultant. Jonathan clarified
that estimates are preliminary. He looks forward to bringing more concrete numbers once
a consultant has vetted them for accuracy. The Council must then determine whether the
fees charged to STRs should reflect the City’s full cost, or if they should be subsidized.
Kit indicated that the Council has been careful in the past not to overcharge fees, typically
charging ½ the cost. This gives room for errors but also recognizes that City regulations
are primarily to protect citizens, so it seems fair that the cost is shared by the citizens rather
than wholly placed on an entity the Council has chosen to regulate. This will be a policy
decision for the Council to make, and the current Council is not bound by the decisions of
the past, but it would be dangerous to charge all of the cost as fees.
Chair Hertzberg opened the issue for public comment. There was none.
c. Issue #2(c) – estimated costs incurred by the City in initially licensing STRs
Jonathan indicated that the costs for initial licensing are as mentioned above – $520 for
CUP and $130 – $140 for business licensing.
Chair Hertzberg questioned if there was a possibility to ask AirBnB and VRBO to verify
that an STR has a City permit before it is listed on the website. Blake expressed concern
that AirBnB and VRBO could avoid responsibility under the Communications Indecency
Act. AirBnB has raised the issue in lawsuits with other cities, like Santa Monica, Boston,
and NYC. In those cases, both Santa Monica and Boston entered into a settlement which
requires AirBnB to verify that a license is issued before allowing the listing. The NYC
case was just dismissed last month, so it is unclear right now what happened.
Page 4 of 7
Kit added that AirBnB may be resistant, feeling it is being required to do work for which
it is not compensated. The City has a voluntary agreement with AirBnB for them to collect
HMR taxes so that the City does not penalize landlords advertising on AirBnB, and it is
much easier when both sides agree.
Public Comment:
Chair Hertzberg opened the issue for public comment. Tom Overbey indicated that an
essential feature of NYC’s STR procedures is a city-provided electronic verification
system. STR license holders are assigned numbers, which the booking company – if given
access to that information – can check before issuing the permit. It is possible the entire
program could be run by computer, and it would cut down enforcement issues because
STRs effectively could not advertise.
Jonathan commented that one aspect common to other cities’ contracts with AirBnB is that
there is a delegation to all parties. The City has responsibility for notifying platforms when
licenses are revoked, and the platform has the responsibility to check the City database to
determine if the STR has a license. People are also using new ways to promote STRs.
When posted on an Instagram story, the listing may be gone within 24 hours.
Councilmember Berna expressed an interest in exploring the issue further and favored the
idea that listings on AirBnB and VRBO would have to be verified before approval. Chair
Hertzberg indicated it may be worth posing the question to the major rental platforms.
d. Items #2(d) – depiction of the density of short-term rentals based on zoning
Jonathan introduced a heat map to demonstrate the density of all licensed Type II STRs, as
well as a chart showing what percentage of issued STR type II licenses are in each district:
• RSF-4 zoning district – 28.4%
• Main Street Center – 12.7%
• RMF-24 zoning district – 18.9%
• Residential zoning districts – approximately 79%
• Commercial zoning districts – approximately 21%
• Zoning districts that allow hotels – 13.5%
Chair Hertzberg asked if the Committee was prepared to discuss density issues, like the
quarter-mile radius or neighborhood-specific zoning. Jonathan indicated that it’s very
difficult to disperse STRs by zoning district. Such a large portion of the City is residential,
and it currently has a proportional amount of the STRs.
Page 5 of 7
Councilmember Berna questioned whether there was reason to spend significant time
considering density issues, given that the City is about to hit its cap. Blake indicated that
Staff currently does a good job taking into account the surrounding area when awarding
permits. Jonathan pointed out that both the Commission and the Council have expressed
anxiety because the ordinance references “issued” STR licenses, but there is a significant
number of unlicensed STRs.
Public Comment:
Tom Overbey indicated that University Heights has a street of 6 houses with 4 being STRs.
He suggested the Committee consider a rule where new STR permits cannot be granted
within 500 feet (or some other distance) of a preexisting STR. Councilmember Moore
asked if the rule might be based on the percentage of STRs on a street.
Kyle Smith stated that a lot of STRs are in newer, smaller, more attainable housing, causing
affordable housing concerns. He further asked if it is a type II rental if ½ of a duplex is
operated as an STR but the other half is lived in. Jonathan answered that it depends on
how the duplex is owned and rented, as well as whether the business was operating during
the start-up period (before the STR ordinance took effect).
Bill Bradley asked if there will be a material impact on the heat map when illegitimate
STRs are identified and brought into compliance. Jonathan responded that there was no
way to map unlicensed STRs, but it would be visible on the map if they added another 25%
or so STRs.
Further Committee Discussion:
Jonathan indicated that the Planning Commission has struggled with (1) new construction
houses being used as STRs and the possibility of limiting that, and (2) communities where
Staff have advocated for denser, smaller, more diverse housing types and made Code
exemptions to allow them to function as a community, but now are overrun with STRs.
Blake advised that Planning should not use the age of the development as an approval
factor because the Council has not adopted it as a factor they can consider. Kit added that
he can understand limiting the number of STRs in cluster housing, but the City cannot ban
them just for being new. Councilmember Moore asked if there was a legal reason why a
CUP cannot be conditioned on the age of the housing. Kit responded that CUPs are looking
for compatibility with the surrounding area, and Planning could place conditions using
compatibility as a metric.
Chair Hertzberg asked if it would change the legality to look at the age of construction as
a consideration for approval, not a condition. Kit answered that City Council has a lot of
discretion in development provided it has reasonable arguments to support a condition.
Though newer construction isn’t sufficient as a consideration, the Council can consider
other factors. Chair Hertzberg questioned whether the fact that a development was slated
as providing affordable housing would be sufficient to ban houses from becoming STRs
for a period of time. Kit stated that staff could consider the size of the homes and other
Page 6 of 7
less subjective measures but should be moderate in setting limits like outright bans. It
would be difficult to explain to a court why singling out new construction is reasonable.
Kit believes the City could regulate the number of STRs in specific types of developments,
like cluster housing, but this should apply to existing and to-be-built homes. Blake added
that he has never been able to identify an adequate reason to treat new construction
differently from existing construction other than that it impacts affordable housing.
Councilmember Moore indicated that cluster housing was created to establish neighborly
communities, so it seems counterintuitive to have transient guests coming, going, and using
communal spaces. Blake indicated that Council could consider removing STR as a use in
cluster housing. He also asked how many cluster housing developments are in the City.
Jonathan answered that there are 3 with another 4-5 under construction. Councilmember
Berna expressed hesitation on restricting STRs in cluster housing. He is amenable to some
restrictions but unsure about an outright ban.
Councilmember Moore indicated that having 50% STR density in a neighborhood is too
high and changes the fabric. Chair Hertzberg expressed concern with broadening the
restrictions to neighborhoods generally. Jonathan added that if the City restricts by number
of STRs on a particular street, it doesn’t account for density of the area.
Councilmember Moore indicated that the issue will require exploration, and Council is not
prepared to move on it now. Jonathan stated that preparing accurate density representations
will take some lead time. Chair Hertzberg expressed interest in knowing the current
percentage of licensed STRs in cluster housing. Councilmember Moore expressed interest
in knowing the percentages by block, as well as other jurisdictions’ practices with street-
level or density limitations. Councilmember Berna suggested it would be useful to select
a couple different neighborhoods and view them using different density metrics.
Jonathan indicated it would take at least 2 weeks, maybe more, to put together informative
reports/visuals on these issues.
e. Item #2(e) – description of other jurisdictions’ STR moratorium practices
Jonathan raised that New Orleans famously imposed a moratorium on STRs and lost their
case. The city had to provide some allowance for property owners to operate STRs.
Hannah Hungate asked if the Council was referring to a moratorium as in not allowing any
STRs after the cap is met or outright banning them in certain areas.
Councilmember Moore expressed interest in tying STRs to the rental market, such that the
City won’t allow additional type II STRs until it has a healthy rental market. Kit pointed
out that a moratorium is coming anyway when the cap is reached. Announcing an
additional moratorium invites controversy, as the cap is a tough standard on its own.
Jonathan hypothesized that the cap could be met this year, and the City needs metrics for
imposing it. Kit believes the City is in a good position to support its reasons for the cap.
Page 7 of 7
Councilmember Moore asked what the impact would be if the City lowered the cap. Kit
indicated that this would be possible only if the City allowed the current ordinance to lapse,
which would not be advisable. Additionally, once the sunset clause is gone, the City
couldn’t reduce the cap because it would essentially be a government taking. At this point,
the City would almost need an emergency reason to reduce the cap.
Hannah indicated that Hot Springs has a similar cap on STRs, which it lowered in its second
year, but all previously-licensed STRs are subject to automatic renewal even if they exceed
the cap. Hot Springs currently exceeds their cap by a little more than 70. Chair Hertzberg
asked what other jurisdictions have done when the cap has been reached. Kit stated that
caps are not unheard of, and the City has enough good reasons to support its cap, so he
would recommend leaving it as is. Blake added that the only other thing to tie it to is the
American Community Survey, where 475 is close to the 1% discussed therein.
There was no public comment. Chair Hertzberg asked if there was anything further. Blake
raised the issue of maximum fines for noncompliance, which he addressed in a memo sent
out prior to the meeting. Councilmember Moore asked if the fines would increase for just
STR violations or any code violation. Blake answered that, unless there is a specific
penalty in the particular code section, it reverts to the general penalty, so raising those
penalties would have a broad impact.
Kit recommended that the general rule be changed so it is effective for all code violations
unless the Council wants to insert a penalty provision directly into the STR regulations.
He also clarified that the penalties are maximums and do not take into account the
discretion of the prosecutors and judge. Councilmember Moore was opposed to enhancing
penalties for all code violations. She was in favor of enhancing only those fines for STRs.
Blake indicated that Hot Springs did that with their Code.
3. Next Meeting: The Committee declined to set a date and would like Jonathan to contact
the legal department when he has compiled the information necessary to map STR density.
4. There being no other business for the Committee to consider, Chair Hertzberg adjourned
the meeting at 7:12 p.m.
MINUTES
Ordinance Review Committee Meeting
Wednesday, November 1, 2023
Hybrid – Room 326 and Zoom
1. The Ordinance Review Committee met in person and by Zoom in City Hall Room 326.
Council Members Hertzberg and Moore were present in person. Council Member Berna
joined by Zoom.
2. Old Business: The only item of old business was a short-term rental (“STR”) data review.
Jonathan Curth stated that there are currently 402 licensed STRs in the City, with 133 of
those being up for renewal. There are another 56 STRs in the review process. If those are
approved, there will be 458 compliant type 2 STRs and 17 available business licenses.
Council Member Moore asked how many STR license holders did not renew this year.
Jonathan indicated there were two he knew intended not to renew and another fifteen who
had not renewed and hadn’t expressed their intention.
Jonathan Curth shared a Host Compliance update about STRs operating in Fayetteville:
• 702 units currently advertised
• 1,144 properties available to rent or book (1,093 are STRs)
• 30 new units listed in the last 30 days
• Vast majority of STRs are single-family homes where the entire home is rented
• 382 STRs operating in compliance
• 204 STRs that are not compliant
• 116 STRs where compliance has not been determined
Jonathan indicated that Host Compliance makes enforcement more feasible. Its interactive
map shows any property operating as an STR, displaying the address, owner information,
listing status, listing platform, daily rate, and an activity timeline that extends for as long
as the property has been advertised. This timeline shows when the property was posted
and all documented stays. Host Compliance also allows users to examine the density of
compliant and noncompliant STRs in a neighborhood.
Council Member Moore asked if it is possible to set parameters to identify those STRs that
have been operating the longest without licenses. Jonathan confirmed that Host
Compliance’s data would allow staff to identify those. Chair Hertzberg asked if Host
Compliance has supplied addresses for all of the noncompliant properties. Jonathan
answered that it has. Its spreadsheets correlate county assessor information with property
parcel information and provides STR owners’ names and addresses. Chair Hertzberg asked
if staff has issued any violation letters to the noncompliant STRs. Jonathan indicated that
about half a dozen have been issued.
Page 2 of 4
Public Comment:
Tom Overbey addressed the committee, asking how and where the data gathered by Host
Compliance is stored. Jonathan Curth answered that Host Compliance has the information
on their servers and shares it with City staff for as long as the two have a contract. The
contract is for one year, and during that time, Host Compliance will continue to evaluate
STRs as they are added and removed. The price is about $25,000 a year.
Blake Pennington asked how Host Compliance documents a stay. For instance, if the dates
are blocked out on AirBnB, is that considered a documented stay? Does it take into account
instances where the dates are blocked out because the owner is there, and the property isn’t
available to rent? Jonathan wasn’t sure but will find out.
Council Member Moore asked whether access to the Host Compliance dashboard and
interactive map will remain with staff or be available to the public. Jonathan stated that he
would have to check the language of the contract. Currently, access is limited to staff.
Chair Hertzberg asked if the committee could review the map showing the distribution of
noncompliance. Displaying the map, Jonathan Curth pointed out that the density and
location of noncompliant STRs tends to follow that of compliant STRs.
Chair Hertzberg asked what the timeframe looked like to bring the issue of the sunset clause
to the City Council. Jonathan responded that if the intent is to amend the ordinance without
adding an emergency clause, the ordinance would need to go before the Council on
November 21. Blake Pennington added that it was Kit Williams’ opinion that the
amendment could take effect without an emergency clause, but it would be best to address
it at the last meeting in November to be safe.
3. New Business: Council Member Moore wished to discuss potential proposals for
evaluating and regulating density of STRs in particular neighborhoods. She distributed
packets proposing regulation strategies, a copy of which is attached.
Council Member Moore stated that the City has a disproportionate number of STRs in
some neighborhoods, suggesting that the committee consider adopting a maximum number
of STRs per block. Under her proposal, no more than 12.5% of properties on a single block
would be permitted to operate as type 2 STRs. This would prevent neighborhoods from
being overwhelmed with STRs. There are associated challenges, as not all blocks are the
same length/density, but one solution could be to define a “block” in accordance with
Fayetteville City Code § 166.08(E)(1)(c). A decision would also have to be made as to
rounding when the percentage calculation does not come to a whole number.
Chair Hertzberg asked if the density parameter takes into account the number of units or
the number of addresses. Council Member Moore indicated that the proposal considered
number of units, but the number of units was equitable to the number of address in all the
examples she presented. Jonathan Curth added that 911 requires different addresses for
different units, so that should always be the case.
Page 3 of 4
Chair Hertzberg stated that she was not comfortable rounding down to zero allowable STRs
on a particular block and would prefer that any parameters include allowing at least one
STR in an area. She also agrees that a specific definition of “block” should be incorporated.
Jonathan Curth expressed some concern that staff may misapply the density parameters
when the block is hard to identify. For example, if an STR operates on a corner lot, a policy
may need to be adopted that the street where the lot is addressed is the only one considered,
so two streets are not penalized for one STR.
Chair Hertzberg can see issues arising if an STR operator decides they don’t want to renew
their license but later decides to reapply. Jonathan Curth stated that staff follows the
interpretation that an STR license can transfer when the property is sold, giving the new
buyer 30 days to take over the license or forfeit it.
Council Member Moore stated that a lot of properties which were historically for young
families and students are being turned into type 2 STRs. She believes it is necessary to
arm staff with parameters for licensing STRs in a way that protects the City’s goals.
Jonathan Curth suggested that another parameter could be a point density count where
density is based on the number of STRs within a rectangular area. There would still need
to be very specific parameters on rounding and contingency plans for situations where lots
straddle intersections. Council Member Berna would lean towards considering the point
density parameter, particularly if it would be easier for staff to apply.
Council Member Moore asked if a goal of trying to maintain the integrity and community
of the neighborhood factors into the consideration. Council Member Berna asked how that
would weigh in when thinking about the geographics of some neighborhoods compared to
others. For example, neighborhoods closer to the university might be more attractive to
students. Council Member Moore doesn’t think any area of town should be required to
bear more of the burden of STRs than others because those who visit Fayetteville will stay
where they can find available, even if it is not right by the university or stadium.
Chair Hertzberg would be comfortable bringing the density parameter issue with the sunset
clause before City Council to discuss. Council Member Berna was not sure the committee
was ready to bring the density issue forward if it is still undecided whether block or point
density is best. He proposed that the committee allow Jonathan time to more closely review
the two options and provide the staff’s perspective.
Council Member Moore asked if there is a way to offer the Council both the block and
point density options. Blake Pennington answered that she could sponsor two items – one
for each – if she chose. Jonathan Curth expressed anxiety about evaluating both parameters
and getting documents drafted by the agenda deadline for the November 21st meeting.
Council Member Berna did not think the committee had to rush in presenting the density
options at the same time as the sunset clause. Blake added that it would be difficult to
make a decision between the two density parameters at the full meeting and that making
those decisions was the purpose of the committee.
Page 4 of 4
Chair Hertzberg suggested taking a vote on bringing the sunset clause issue to the Council
for the November 21st meeting. Council Member Berna suggested that another committee
meeting be scheduled prior to the November 28th agenda session where council members
are invited to attend and weigh in.
Blake Pennington asked how much longer the sunset clause should be extended. Chair
Hertzberg recommended one year. Council Member Moore asked, if the sunset clause is
not extended, whether that would make all existing type 2 STRs illegal as of January 1st.
Blake answered that it would. Chair Hertzberg indicated that a year would be reasonable
and the sunset clause is still needed. Council Member Berna agreed. Council Member
Moore agreed but would not want to extend for longer than a year.
Council Member Berna moved to amend the ordinance to extend the sunset clause
for one year. Council Member Moore seconded the motion. The committee adopted
the motion unanimously. The amendment will be included on the agenda for the
November 21 Council meeting.
The committee decided to meet again on November 29 from 5:30-7:30 p.m. Invitations
will be extended to other Council members if they would like to attend and offer input.
Chair Hertzberg asked if Jonathan Curth could prepare for the next meeting a list of staff
questions or issues pertaining to the two proposed density parameters, an update on STR
permits currently under review, and a list of violation letters that have been sent out to
noncompliant STRs.
Council Member Moore asked whether the annual fee paid for Host Compliance might be
cheaper if the City only uses the information already gathered. Jonathan Curth indicated
that the City is currently paying the base rate, and the information would not be updated
after the expiration of the City’s contract with Host Compliance. Jonathan stated he would
also follow up on what constitutes a documented stay and what access to the Host
Compliance dashboard might be available to the public.
Chair Hertzberg opened the floor for public comment. There was none.
4. There being no other business for the committee to consider, Chair Hertzberg adjourned
the meeting at 6:33 p.m.
Regulation Strategies for Short-Term Rental
Goals:
1.Protect neighborhoods from being overwhelmed by the impact of Short-Term Rentals.
2.Protected the residential housing supply by limiting calibrating the market needs for lodging vs market needs
for residential properties.
Regulation Axes &Parameters:
Overall Quantity
Parameters
●City-wide quantity,currently set at 475.
Justification &Intent
●Prevent the unlimited expansion of short term rentals.
●Simple metric that is easy to interpret,manage,and monitor.
Challenges
●Allows detrimental concentrations to dominate a few neighborhoods
Block Quantity
Possible Framing
●“A maximum of 12.5%(1/8th)Type 2 STR business licenses are permitted to be issued on a
single block.”
Parameters
●Block maximum quantity.
Justification &Intent
●Prevent excessive clusters of STRs within one area of a neighborhood.
●Focus on the contextual street-level experience,rather than raw distance.
Challenges
●Not all blocks are the same length or density (see Block Density strategy below).
●Some areas of town may have very long distances between intersections that are not logically
connected,or even surpass a distance-based limitation.
○Solution:
■Define “Block”in accordance with 166.08(E)(1)(C)Intersections shall occur at a
minimum of one (1)every 660 feet.
■A “block”shall be interpreted as the linear distance along a street from one intersecting
cross street to another,or to a cul-de-sac or dead end.Where that distance exceeds
the 660 feet block length limit in 166.08(E)(1)(C),the “block”for purposes of
determining STR quantity shall be measured to ensure that the limit is not exceeded in
any 660 foot span of the street.
●Mid-Block Example:The span of the street extending 330 feet in each direction
from the midpoint of the proposed STR parcel’s street frontage.
●End-Block Example:When the parcel is within 330 feet of the end of a long
block,the 660 feet extending from the nearest intersection will be used.
Block Density
Possible Framing
●“The maximum number of Type 2 STR business licenses permitted on a single block shall be no
more than 12.5%of the residential units on that block.”
Parameters
●Block maximum percentage.
Justification &Intent
●Prevent excessive clusters of STRs within one area of a neighborhood.
●Focus on the contextual street-level experience,rather than raw distance.
●Percentage scale accommodates blocks of various residential densities.
●Allows for customization of value by zoning designation.
Challenges
●Some areas of town may have very long distances between intersections that are not logically
connected,or even surpass a distance-based limitation.
○Solution:See block length interpretation guide in “Block Quantity”strategy above.
●When the percentage calculation is not a whole number,determine where to round.
●See “block”interpretation guidelines in Block Quantity strategy above.The math can create some
tricky thresholds:
Example
Number of
Houses on
Block
Percentage
Allowance
Number
Allowed
Round
Nearest
Round
Down
Round
Up
12
Highland
between
Ila &
Maple
10%1.2 1 1 2
15%2.25 2 2 3
20%2.4 2 2 3
25%3 3 3 3
19
Locust
between
Dickson &
Spring
10%1.9 2 1 2
15%2.85 3 2 3
20%3.8 4 3 4
25%4.75 5 4 5
31
660 feet of
Longfellow
10%3.1 3 3 4
15%4.65 4 4 5
20%6.2 6 6 7
25%7.75 8 7 8
7
Huckleberry
10%.7 1 0 1
15%1.05 1 1 2
20%1.4 1 1 2
25%1.75 2 1 2
4
Strawberry
Between
Mayberry &
Huckleberry
10%.4 0 0 1
15%.6 1 0 1
20%.8 1 0 1
25%1 1 1 1
Regulation Strategies for Short-Term Rental
Proposed Areas of Consideration: Ordinance Review Meeting 11.29.2023 via Councilmember Moore
A. Density Goals:
1. Protect neighborhoods from being overwhelmed by the impact of Short-Term Rentals.
2. Protected the residential housing supply by limiting calibrating the market needs for lodging vs market needs
for residential properties.
Regulation Axes & Parameters:
Overall Quantity
Parameters
● City-wide quantity, currently set at 475.
Justification & Intent
● Prevent the unlimited expansion of short term rentals.
● Simple metric that is easy to interpret, manage, and monitor.
Challenges
● Allows detrimental concentrations to dominate a few neighborhoods
Block Quantity
Possible Framing
● “A maximum of 12.5% (1/8th) Type 2 STR business licenses are permitted to be issued on a
single block.” When this results in a partial unit count, round down to the nearest whole unit,
unless zero. If zero to under 1 unit, round up to 1 unit.
Parameters
● Block maximum quantity.
Justification & Intent
● Prevent excessive clusters of STRs within one area of a neighborhood.
● Focus on the contextual street-level experience, rather than raw distance.
Challenges
● Not all blocks are the same length or density (see Block Density strategy below).
● Some areas of town may have very long distances between intersections that are not logically
connected, or even surpass a distance-based limitation.
○ Solution:
■ Define “Block” in accordance with 166.08(E)(1)(C) Intersections shall occur at a
minimum of one (1) every 660 feet.
■ A “block” shall be interpreted as the linear distance along a street from one intersecting
cross street to another, or to a cul-de-sac or dead end. Where that distance exceeds
the 660 feet block length limit in 166.08(E)(1)(C), the “block” for Regulation Strategies
for Short-Term Rental Page 1 : 11.29.23
Received by: Sarah Moore
11/30/2023
9:29 AM
■purposes of determining STR quantity shall be measured to ensure that the limit is not
exceeded in any 660 foot span of the street.
●Mid-Block Example:The span of the street extending 330 feet in each direction
from the midpoint of the proposed STR parcel’s street frontage.
●End-Block Example:When the parcel is within 330 feet of the end of a long
block,the 660 feet extending from the nearest intersection will be used.
Block Density
Possible Framing
●“The maximum number of Type 2 STR business licenses permitted on a single block shall be no
more than 12.5%of the residential units on that block.”
○Look at San Antonio handout for details on how the block would be handled for varied
types of structures.
○Notwithstanding the calculations above,a minimum of 1 STR-2 will be allowed
Some short block and low percentage calculations yield results that round to zero
○Corner Lots,Through Lots,and Lots Spanning Intersections
■Count where it’s addressed
Benefit to the STR market by not double counting
■Count for each frontage
Benefit to the neighborhood by focusing on context of built environment
experience
○Cluster Housing Developments
Cluster housing/cottage courts are constructed around common space with shared
amenities used by all owners.
●No STR-2 permit shall be issued in a Cluster Housing Development or
Cottage Court without notarized signed consent from all owners and
tenants in the development.
○Updated consent shall be required for each annual license
renewal application.
Parameters
●Block maximum percentage.
Justification &Intent
●Prevent excessive clusters of STRs within one area of a neighborhood.
●Focus on the contextual street-level experience,rather than raw distance.
●Percentage scale accommodates blocks of various residential densities.
●Allows for customization of value by zoning designation.
Challenges
●Some areas of town may have very long distances between intersections that are not logically
connected,or even surpass a distance-based limitation.
○Solution:See block length interpretation guide in “Block Quantity”strategy above.
●When the percentage calculation is not a whole number,determine where to round.
●See “block”interpretation guidelines in Block Quantity strategy above.The math can create some
tricky thresholds:
Regulation Strategies for Short-Term Rental Page 2 :11.29.23
Example
Number of
Houses on
Block
Percentage
Allowance
Number
Allowed
Round
Nearest
Round
Down
Round
Up
12
Highland
between
Ila &
Maple
10%1.2 1 1 2
15%2.25 2 2 3
20%2.4 2 2 3
25%3 3 3 3
19
Locust
between
Dickson &
Spring
10%1.9 2 1 2
15%2.85 3 2 3
20%3.8 4 3 4
25%4.75 5 4 5
31
660 feet of
Longfellow
10%3.1 3 3 4
15%4.65 4 4 5
20%6.2 6 6 7
25%7.75 8 7 8
7
Huckleberry
10%.7 1 0 1
15%1.05 1 1 2
20%1.4 1 1 2
25%1.75 2 1 2
4
Strawberry
Between
Mayberry &
Huckleberry
10%.4 0 0 1
15%.6 1 0 1
20%.8 1 0 1
25%1 1 1 1
B.Other Considerations
Location:
1.No Type 2 STRs can be located side-by-side.
2.School Exclusion Zones
a.STR-2 shall not be permitted within 1/2 mile pedestrian network distance of public school.
Prioritize neighborhood cohesion and safety around school zones
Encourage health and minimize traffic concerns by facilitating walk-to-school lifestyle
3.No Type 2 STR within ½mile of current transit line
Ongoing Maintenance:
4.STR CUP shall expire on change of ownership of the property.
Possible Ordinance Changes:
5.Do we have issues with Type 1 operating the way that they are?If not,consider pulling Type 1 STR out and
finalizing
Regulation Strategies for Short-Term Rental Page 4 :11.29.23
Excerpt from San Antonio TX STR code
(c)Density Limitations for Short Term Rentals (Type 2)in Residential Areas.In order to preserve the essential
character of residential areas,the following density limitations are established:
(1)Short Term Rentals (Type 2)shall be limjted to no more than one-eighth (12.5 per cent)of the total number of
single-family,duplex,triplex,or quadraplex units on the block face,as defined in Appendix A of this Chapter,in
residential zoning districts.At least one (Type 2)short term rental shall be permitted per block face,regardless of
density.Authorized Bed and Breakfast establishments shall be considered in the calculation of these density
requirements.
(2)Short Term Rentals (Type 2)within multi-family (e.g.5 or more units)buildings or groups of buildings on the same
land,lot or parcel,regardless of zoning district,shall be limited to the density requirements in Table 374.01-1.
Authorized Bed and Breakfast establishments shall be considered in the calculation of these density requirements.
In order to establish and operate a Short Term Rental (Type 2}which exceeds the density limitations of this Section,
approval of a special exception from the Board of Adjustment shall be required in addition to the requirements of
Article XXII of Chapter 16 of the City Code.See Section 35-399.03.of this Chapter.
(d)Nonconforming Rights for Short Term Rentals (Type 2}lawfully in existence as of the effective date of ordinance.
Short Term Rental (Type 2}establishments shall be considered lawfully in existence for the purposes of deriving
non-conforming rights from Section 35-702 of this Chapter if all of the following criteria are met:
(1)The owner shall provide written confirmation from the City of San Antonio Finance Department showing proof of
registration for the specific location for the Short Term
Item No.04 Page 13
Rental establishment for payment of the Hotel Occupancy Tax required by Chapter 3 Lof the City Code of San
Antonio,Texas.
(2)The owner shall provide written confirmation from the City of San Antonio Finance Department showing proof that
their Hotel Occupancy Tax Account with the City of San Antonio is not in arrears.
(3)The Hotel Occupancy Tax confirmation from the City of San Antonio Finance Department indicates that the that
the registration occurred prior to the effective date of this ordinance for the specific location for which the Short Term
Rental establishment seeking nonconforming rights indicates.
Regulation Strategies for Short-Term Rental Page 5 :11.29.23
