Laserfiche WebLink
10 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br />October 24, 2023 <br />Page 2 <br />V. REPORTS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF - NONE. <br />A. Rental Housing <br />City Planner Grittman reviewed the Planning Commission considered three separate ordinance <br />proposals related generally to rental housing as a follow-up to the Council's discussion at a <br />recent Work Session. The ordinances addressed (1) Short-term Rental housing; (2) General <br />single family home rental limitations; and (3) "Sacred Settlements", a new topic raised by the <br />2023 State Legislature. The Commission opened a public hearing on draft ordinances that <br />addresses each of the three topics, copies of which are included for Council review. <br />The Commission became concerned that few members of the public who may otherwise have an <br />interest in some of these issues were participating in the review. One member of the public had <br />contacted staff by email, encouraging the City to adopt both the short-term limitations and <br />restrictions on rental housing generally. <br />The Commission's views were varied on these two topics, with support expressed for the <br />ordinances as presented (in general), concerns over limitations on individual owner's rights by <br />restricting either short-term rentals or limiting rental overall, concerns that the proposed <br />limitations may be subject to work-arounds by creative landlord/applicants, and support for <br />considering alternatives to code -based limitations (such as more aggressive code enforcement <br />and/or penalties for violations). <br />For the "Sacred Settlement" ordinance, the Commission expressed only minor changes or <br />concerns to a few aspects of the amendment as presented (primarily parking and fencing). <br />The Commission expressed a desire to pursue a stronger public engagement program in this <br />regard, prior to making a formal recommendation. The public hearing was continued to a future <br />agenda date, and staff indicated they would follow-up with the City Manager and Council as to <br />further direction. Because some of the comments from the Planning Commission implicate other <br />policy topics or financial investments, staff is seeking direction from the City Council as to next <br />steps. <br />Follow-up from the Council may include consideration of the following questions, or others: <br />1. Should staff develop a plan for community outreach on these topics? <br />2. Would Council prefer to see a more interactive engagement, or more communication <br />from City to the public as to rental housing regulations, whether short-term or long-term? <br />3. Would the Council prefer that the Planning Commission facilitates community outreach <br />on these topics? <br />4. Would the Council prefer to schedule a Work Session to discuss community outreach — <br />or these topics more broadly — with the Planning Commission? <br />5. Does the Council have further direction for the Planning Commission and/or Staff as to <br />scope or context as a part of returning these topics to the Commission for review and <br />recommendation? <br />