Lewisville council directs staff to draft STR ordinance with 1,500-cap option, 1,000-foot spacing and multifamily guardrails
Loading...
Summary
City council debated short-term rental rules, directed staff to prepare an ordinance with a 150-permit city cap (grandfathering existing permits), a 1,000-foot spacing option, and multifamily percentage guardrails while flagging enforcement and staffing needs.
Lewisville city council spent a lengthy segment of its May 2025 meeting reviewing short-term rental (STR) policy options and asked staff to return with draft ordinance language that includes spacing, multifamily limits and an overall permit cap.
City staff presented data on current activity: 98 active STR permits and 15 pending applications (113 total at the meeting), and several staff analyses of hypothetical spacing rules that showed a 500-foot spacing could allow up to roughly 3,249 single-family properties to qualify under a maximum-case approach, whereas a 1,000-foot linear spacing would cover about 841 parcels (approximately 3 percent of the city under staff's methodology).
Chris McGinn, staff lead on STR policy, reported outreach to apartment property managers and the Apartment Association of Greater Dallas; most apartment managers told staff their leases and management rules would prevent short-term rentals and they were uninterested in permitting STRs on multifamily properties. McGinn said the Texas Comptroller data can be used to cross-check hotel-occupancy-tax remittances and staff will continue revenue-compliance checks.
Council discussion covered multiple trade-offs: several members favored a 1,000-foot spacing requirement to limit clustering while preserving opportunities for individual homeowners; others urged a city cap to prevent rapid proliferation. After debate, council agreed on a path forward: ask staff to return with ordinance drafts that would (a) implement a 1,000-foot spacing option, (b) include a citywide cap option of 150 permitted STRs (with existing, active permits to be grandfathered so long as owners maintain annual renewal), and (c) present multifamily percentage options (examples discussed ranged from 1% to 5% of units; staff noted peer cities commonly use 3%). Council also asked staff to include operational details covering permit renewal, permit transfer on sale, enforcement workload and budget/staff implications.
Council members repeatedly emphasized the difference between multifamily properties (where management often controls tenant rules) and individually owned single-family homes or condos; several members said they consider condos different because buyers hold investments in the units. Members also asked staff to return with estimates of additional enforcement staffing or revenue needed if permits grow.
No ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Staff said they will return with proposed ordinance language, fee and enforcement options, and multifamily-cap scenarios for further council consideration.
