short-term residential rental uses - amazon web services · 2016-11-04 · short-term residential...

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