|
potentially twice the density as the short-term rental, but this language would require virtually
<br />the same parking as a B&B. Hotel units without a kitchen, which would be the equivalent of a
<br />bedroom and a house, you only have to have one parking for three units, not one for each unit.
<br />So, II don't know. This seems to be, to me, a little bit harder on the short-term vacation rental
<br />than, certainly much more onerous than the hotel guest units without a kitchen, and the same as,
<br />say, a B&B that could have as many as, could have twice as many people in the building.
<br />JACKSON: Would you like me to respond to that?
<br />CLARKSON: Please.
<br />JACKSON: Okay. So, the hotel use, it's not really shown here, but if you look at the definition
<br />of a hotel in the Code, hotels do not occur within a single-family dwelling, so it's a, it's a
<br />different type of use. The closest thing to what this bill is trying to address would be the bed &
<br />breakfast establishment. And, the bill and the suggested change to the bill both are kind of in
<br />line with that B&B parking requirement. Basically, it says if you're renting a room, you have to
<br />provide one parking space per room. So, that's actually consistent.
<br />But, the difference with the, the Bill 256 is that some people do just rent vacation rentals as an
<br />entire home to one family, so it's not fair if somebody comes over on vacation and rents a rental
<br />car and comes with their whole family to rent the home. There's—there's no reason why they
<br />would need three additional parking spaces, if they've just rented one or maybe two vehicles. It
<br />would be similar to like having just a family live in the house. And, so, that's, that's the reason
<br />for that.
<br />HENKEL: Mr. Ikeda?
<br />IKEDA: You know, I, I support the Director's recommended language. It's much better than
<br />the original, but my concern isn't so much about the language. My concern is will the Council
<br />considered this language? And, I know what the Director recommended, you know, for
<br />approval, but I'm afraid that the Council might just stick to their language and not necessarily
<br />adopt the Director's recommendation.
<br />JACKSON: Yeah, we, we debated whether to make a favorable or unfavorable
<br />recommendation. We supported the intent of the bill, but just wanted to add that, that additional
<br />clarification which is why we went with favorable. But, in hindsight, I can see your point,
<br />Commissioner Ikeda, and it may be more appropriate to go with an unfavorable recommendation
<br />on what they're actually proposing and then to recommend any proposed language that the
<br />Commission sees fit.
<br />HENKEL: Yeah, the Council is going to, you know, make a determination, you know, with or
<br />without our approval, but that's why it's important to have our discussion here so that, you
<br />know, if, whether we approve or disapprove, they kind of know where we're coming from. And,
<br />Mr. Clarkson, your, your comments were kind of indicating that you feel that the, the language is
<br />too restrictive. To clarify for me
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />3
<br />
|