HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-22-17 Public Comment - J. Delmue - Short Term Rentals1
Clerk Temp
From:Jason Delmue <delmue@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 22, 2017 1:31 PM
To:Agenda
Subject:STRs - Action Item #5
Categories:Public Comment
Dear Mayor and Commissioners,
I'm writing regarding the regulation of Short-Term Rentals (STRs).
At the outset, I note that my Type 3 STR is in R-3 (and I live right next door, and so it's really more
like a Type 2). I also have a small 5-unit project proceeding in B-3. I mention this because my
suggestions below do not benefit me personally; instead, they are simply based on my love of
Downtown Bozeman and my opinion that STRs are a beneficial use to the community generally and
to Downtown specifically.
I think that the original staff report (for the April 24th meeting) was on the right track, to wit: ensuring
that STRs are registered so that contact information is readily available in the RARE event of a
problem but otherwise NOT to ban them or significantly restrict them. The original recommendations
were based on the DATA collected through extensive outreach (e.g., 73% of 768 survey respondents
believe STRs should be allowed in ALL R zones) and the expertise of the professional staff doing
their full-time jobs. I believe that the current recommendations -- in response to comments made at
the April 24th City Commission meeting -- go too far and, by contrast, give too much credence to the
vocal opposition who cite the RARE occurrences of problems. As set forth in the Police Department
memo attached to the July 18, 2016 Commission Packet (page 10/packet page 201), STRs are no
worse than owner-occupied homes in terms of calls to the Police Department. The original staff
report recognized that STRs are a legitimate and beneficial residential use and, therefore, are
compatible in all R zones and should NOT be eliminated or severely restricted.
Here are some suggestions that I hope you will consider as a sub-motion/amendment tonight:
2
ALLOW TYPE 3s in R-2 (Change the yellow to green on the map - packet page 518/staff report
page 5 of 21).
This is the most significant change in terms of the size of the affected area because, as proposed, the
current ordinance will ELIMINATE whole-house STRs Downtown south of Main Street (when coupled
with the proposed Type 2 ban in R-1 and R-S). The R-2 areas south of Downtown are far larger than
the R-1 areas there. This seems like a very bad idea in terms of lost walking customers to Downtown
businesses and lost opportunities for visitors (many of whom are visiting friends and families near
where they are renting an STR). It will also pretty much drive Bozeman Cottage Vacation Rentals
(Paul House) out of business. Allowing Type 3s in R-2 will prevent these negative effects.
ALLOW TYPE 2s in R-1 and R-S (Change the orange to yellow on the map)
While the R-1 area south of Downtown is smaller than the R-2, the fairness aspect of this change is
significant. Remember, Type 2s are OWNER-OCCUPIED for AT LEAST half of the year. These
homeowners are residents of the neighborhood with relationships with their neighbors. They are not
absent or anonymous. Some need this income when they leave town in order even to afford to live
there! For a minority of neighbors to insist that their quality of life will be so severely diminished
because part of the year "transient strangers" share their exclusive neighborhood is unreasonable
and should not be given credence by this Commission. On this topic, I note that STRs are a
residential use. I see nothing in the code to support a QUALITATIVE difference between any R
zone. Yes, the densities and max building heights increase as you go from R-1 to R-5, but I see
nothing suggesting that R-1 is extra special or most excellent. ALL the R neighborhoods should be
treated equally in terms of livability, walkability, kids playing, safety, etc. Nothing in the code or data
supports a qualitatively different treatment for R-1. Allowing Type 2s in R-1 is perfectly compatible
with a quality neighborhood experience.
TREAT TYPE 1s and 2s THE SAME
To simplify the system, perhaps Type 1s and Type 2s should be treated the same. Some Type 2s --
owner occupying either the house or the ADU or one side of the duplex -- are pretty darn similar to
Type 1s in terms of oversight of the renting guests. And the other Type 2 (owner lives in it at least
half of the year) still has substantial presence in and connection to the neighborhood. Maybe Type 1
and Type 2 should just be combined. Alternatively, perhaps the ADU and duplex Type 2s should be
moved to Type 1.
GRANDFATHER EXISTING STRs THAT ARE REGISTERED WITH THE HEALTH DEPT AND PAY
THE BED TAX
There are many STRs currently operating in the R-1 and R-2 zones that have been registered with
the Health Dept and collecting the bed tax for years. This is the substantive heart of what has been
required, and they comply. The only thing they are missing is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP);
however, many were told by the Planning Department or former City Manger, in essence: Don't
bother; We have bigger fish to fry; It's a complaint-based system, so unless your rental is causing
problems, it's not an issue; etc. It is manifestly unfair to have pointed these owners or their property
managers down the path of not bothering with a CUP and now eliminating their long-standing use. I
3
would expect these owners to band together and legally resist any effort to shut them down. I note,
however, that if the first two suggestions herein are adopted, it would eliminate this situation, because
these long-standing STRs would be allowed under the new regime.
Thank you for your consideration.
--Jason Delmue
18 E. Peach St.
Bozeman, MT 59715
406-600-2896