Commissioner Maraviglia recused herself.
Assistant Planner Holub presented the staff report, which included information about the vacation rental ordinance, processing of vacation rental applications, and performance standards for vacation rentals. He also addressed objections raised by the appellant including concerns about availability of parking, an unpermitted structure in the garage of the residence where the rental is proposed, and parking within a fire lane.
Sharon Valienzi, appellant, spoke in favor of the appeal stating parking issues, emergency access, failure to comply with private covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the subdivision, and neighborhood disturbances are grounds for upholding the appeal. Ms. Valienzi expressed her disappointment with the permitting process because she feels that the neighbors should be notified with the submittal of an application, not after a decision has been rendered.
Chair Martin opened public comment and the following comments were received:
Alex Hughson, spoke about parking issues created by the short term rental.
Jason Motter, spoke about concerns about traffic, guests speeding on the private driveway, and disturbances caused by short term renters.
Laura spoke about parking issues caused by short term renters that were not problems with long term renters. She spoke about noise issues and safety issues due to lack of adequate lighting at the subject property.
Francine Errico, stated her disappontment with the permitting process and worried about the vacation rental permitted near her home.
Jami Fordyce, spoke about the differences between short term and long term renters and disappointment with the permitting process.
Stew Errico, spoke about concerns with the permitting process.
Alex Hughson read comments prepared by Paul Erb, stating parking issues and disturbance of the neighbors caused by short term renters are reasons to uphold the appeal.
Chair Martin closed public comment.
Ken Steitz, project applicant, stated that the appellants presented information that was not true and that his property is ideal for a vacation rental. He spoke about the parking situation and how the storage room in the garage was used for personal storage. He stated that the guests do not block the fire lane when parked in the driveway and that his guests do not use the guest parking spaces on a full-time basis.
Elaine Steitz, project applicant, spoke about the unpermitted storage room and how it was constructed by the previous owner. They stated that the pictures presented by the appellants are inaccurate and do not accurately portray the parking situation.
The Commission agreed that the appellants bring valid concerns about vacation rentals in general, and that this is a poor location for a vacation rental, however they could not make the findings for denial. The Commission discussed the idea of conditioning the project to require guests to park in the garage to alleviate concerns regarding obstruction of the fire lane.