Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates how to treat short‑term rentals in the Large Lane Development District
Summary
Council discussed four options to resolve ambiguity about whether short‑term rentals are allowed in the Large Lane Development District (LLDD): add LLDD explicitly to residential districts, amend the short‑term rental ordinance, require permits for STRs in specific districts, or take no action and allow municipal court to resolve citations. No motion was made; staff and the city attorney said language and cross‑references should be cleaned up and, if necessary, sent to Planning & Zoning.
Council Member Catherine Lewis presented an item asking for clarification on short‑term rentals (STRs) within the Large Lane Development District (LLDD). Lewis explained that the LLDD is titled a "development district" in Chapter 24 and is not explicitly listed with other residential districts, creating ambiguity about whether the city’s short‑term rental prohibition for residential districts applies.
She outlined four possible approaches: (1) amend Chapter 24 to add LLDD to the enumerated residential districts (which would require referral to the Planning & Zoning Commission and two public hearings), (2) amend the STR ordinance (Section 22‑1‑55) to explicitly list LLDD as prohibited, (3) require STR permits and inspections in LLDD (treat it like a mixed‑use district where STRs are permitted only with a permit), or (4) do nothing and let municipal court adjudicate citations on a case‑by‑case basis.
City Attorney Alan Petrov advised that the STR ordinance was drafted to capture the substance of the rule (location-based prohibitions) rather than rely on captions or district titles; he suggested the city could point municipal court to the ordinance language if a citation were contested but also acknowledged that a cleanup to the code to remove ambiguity would be a routine, advisable step. Council members expressed differing views about the cleanest path: some favored the formal P&Z route to avoid legal ambiguity, while others preferred a faster code fix.
No motion was made at the meeting; council generally agreed to include the cleanup on a future work list and noted P&Z could take it up for formal review if council chooses that option.
