Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Vhr Eligibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies appeal over multifamily classification for 2480 Konosogga St., Unit A
Summary
The Planning Commission denied Dougen Smith’s appeal after staff found the unit met the municipal code definition of a multifamily dwelling (sharing a continuous wall), making it ineligible for a VHR permit; the applicant argued the units are structurally separated by an owner‑access utility space.
The Planning Commission voted to deny an appeal by Dougen Smith seeking a vacation‑home rental permit for 2480 Konosogga Street, Unit A, concluding staff had correctly classified the unit as a multifamily dwelling under the current municipal code.
Assistant planner Gretchen Skullman told the commission the VHR application was deemed ineligible because the property shares a continuous front‑and‑rear wall connecting the units, and the property is listed on a single assessor parcel (not a condominium), so it did not qualify for the prior‑permit exception in the ordinance. The code language cited defines a “multifamily dwelling unit” as one that shares at least one wall, floor or ceiling with another dwelling unit.
Applicant Dougen Smith argued the units are separated by a locked six‑foot utility space with a concrete slab and separate crawlspaces on either side, and that no wall, floor or ceiling is shared in a way that would transfer occupancy or noise; he said the property had operated with separate permits historically and that Measure T’s aftermath complicated permit renewal. Smith offered that modest structural changes (notching or an exterior breezeway) could alter the classification but said such modifications would be expensive and uncertain when the overall ordinance framework was unsettled.
Commissioners debated statutory intent and practical precedent, noting the ordinance aims to preserve multifamily stock for long‑term housing and to avoid creating an easy pathway for owners to bifurcate a single dwelling into two short‑term rentals. On a verbal roll call the commission approved a motion to deny the appeal (recorded votes: Chair Luxinger yes; Vice Chair Fer yes; Commissioner Imhof yes; Commissioner Williams yes; Commissioner Gonzalez yes).
Staff told the commission that building‑code or design modifications could change a property’s classification but such changes would require additional permitting and building‑code review; staff also noted the ordinance included a ‘‘preferred application’’ period for prior permit holders but that applying under the preferred period did not guarantee permit issuance under the current rules.
The commission denied Mr. Smith’s appeal; staff and the applicant discussed possible structural options and the applicant indicated willingness to pursue physical modifications only if the cost and timing were feasible.
