Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves a string of short‑term rental special exceptions with one-year limits and conditions
Summary
The board approved multiple special‑exception permits for home sharing across the city, generally imposing one‑year trial terms, nightly quiet hours and limits on guest counts and on‑site parking; one application in Summerfield drew substantial neighborhood protest and tighter limits.
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The board approved a series of special‑exception permits allowing short‑term home sharing at multiple single‑family addresses, generally limiting stays to one year and adding conditions such as maximum guest counts, quiet hours and restrictions on on‑street parking.
Board members voted to approve applications including case nos. 15886, 15901, 15902, 15904, 15905, 15906, 15907, 15908, 15909, 15914 and 15916 (addresses and applicant names listed below). Most approvals were routine, with staff and applicants agreeing to conditions during the hearing.
The approvals typically included a one‑year permit term, quiet hours (commonly 8 or 9 p.m. to 8 a.m.), limits on the number of vehicles parked on the property (commonly four or five), a prohibition on on‑street parking during quiet hours, and a maximum guest count tied to bedroom numbers (commonly two guests per bedroom, with several applications set at 6–8 guests for the first year). Applicants sometimes reduced their original requests in response to neighbors’ protests or board questions.
Several applications were presented and managed by William Burleson, who said he was representing multiple property owners and management companies. Some applicants described using the properties primarily for family or mid‑term housing, and some managers said they operate longer‑term placements for people in transition. Neighbors expressed concerns about noise, parking, trash and the effect of high turnover on neighborhood character.
The largest protest occurred for case 15909 (4212 Rincon/Rankin Road, Summerfield neighborhood). Attorney Kelly Work, representing the Summerfield Community Association, told the board the neighborhood opposed short‑term rentals and asked the board to deny the application, saying short‑term rentals would “erode the sense of community and reduce the neighborhood cohesion.” Resident Jeff Klein, who said his family lives across the street, asked the board to deny the application and listed party‑related problems his previous neighborhood experienced with short‑term rentals.
Applicants and their local managers responded by offering stronger management commitments, ID checks, local on‑call contacts and noise‑monitoring systems. For 15909 the applicant agreed to a reduced set of conditions before the vote: a maximum of seven guests, quiet hours from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m., a maximum of five vehicles and no on‑street parking during quiet hours, and a one‑year permit term. The board approved that motion.
Other approved applications and typical conditions: case 15886 (Big Home Sales LLC) approved with a maximum of eight guests, five vehicles and one‑year term; case 15901 (Jackson Hollow Investments LLC) approved with eight guests, quiet hours and four on‑site spaces; case 15902 (Libby Ross for Jacob and Stephanie Krager) approved with six guests and three on‑site vehicles; case 15904, 15905, 15906, 15907 and 15908 were approved with conditions limiting guests (generally 6–8), quiet hours (8–9 p.m. start), vehicle limits and one‑year terms; case 15914 (Gordon Lazama on behalf of Corey Callaway and Lordy Williams) likewise approved with eight guests and a one‑year term.
Board members repeatedly told applicants that the first permit year functions as a trial: the board can review renewals based on documented complaints, police or code enforcement calls, or other evidence of nuisance. The board advised neighbors to document problems—calls to police, photos of trash or repeated parking violations—if they occur during the permit term.
Votes at a glance: - Case 15886 (Big Home Sales LLC) — 3632 NW 60th St. — Approved; conditions: max 8 guests, quiet hours 9 p.m.–9 a.m. (as read into the record), max 5 vehicles, one‑year term. - Case 15901 (Jackson Hollow Investments LLC) — 913 NW 404th St. — Approved; conditions: max 8 guests, quiet hours adjusted, max 4 vehicles, no on‑street parking, one‑year term. - Case 15902 (Libby Ross for Jacob & Stephanie Krager) — 1441 NE 9th St. — Approved; conditions: max 6 guests, quiet hours 8 p.m.–8 a.m., max 3 vehicles, no on‑street parking, one‑year term. - Case 15904 (Kelly Fasterling) — 3405 NW 150th Terrace — Approved; conditions: max 6 guests, quiet hours 9 p.m.–8 a.m., max 4 vehicles, no on‑street parking, one‑year term. - Case 15905 (Chance & Maureen Worthington) — 508 NW 180th St. — Approved; conditions: max 8 guests, quiet hours 9 p.m.–8 a.m., max 5 vehicles, no on‑street parking, one‑year term. - Case 15906 (Meka Management LLC) — 4308 NW 150th Eighth St. — Approved; conditions: max 6 guests, quiet hours 8 p.m.–8 a.m., max 4 vehicles, one‑year term. - Case 15907 (A Real Home Away) — 15905 Sky Run Dr. — Approved; conditions: max 6 guests, quiet hours 9 p.m.–8 a.m., max 4 vehicles, no on‑street parking, one‑year term. - Case 15908 (Benjamin Clark) — 16216 Whistle Creek Blvd. — Approved; conditions: max 8 guests, quiet hours 9 p.m.–8 a.m., max 4 vehicles, no on‑street parking, one‑year term. - Case 15909 (Andrew Hayes) — 4212 Rincon/Rankin Rd. (Summerfield) — Approved; conditions: max 7 guests, quiet hours 8 p.m.–8 a.m., max 5 vehicles, no on‑street parking during quiet hours, one‑year term. - Case 15914 (Gordon Lazama/Callaway) — 10005 Holyhead Way — Approved; conditions: max 8 guests, quiet hours 9 p.m.–8 a.m., max 4 vehicles, no on‑street parking, one‑year term.
Why it matters: short‑term rental special exceptions change how single‑family properties may be used and the board’s one‑year conditional approvals create a review point for neighbors and staff to document impacts. The board emphasized enforcement tools and local management contacts as key protections.
The board did not provide detailed roll‑call tallies for each vote in the hearing record; actions were recorded as motions and approved by voice vote.
What’s next: property owners may operate under the conditions set by the board; neighbors and applicants should keep the city and the board’s office informed if conditions are not met during the one‑year term.

