Meeting of April 21, 2016
by Sally Silver

At the end of this meeting we decided not to meet again for 3 weeks on May 12th because the city staff would require that amount of time to write its next report.

The last meeting had ended with consideration of several maps depicting areas that might be considered for relocating rental licenses. We had begun by looking at maps of Chesterfield Hills/Oakhill/Glencairn and Red Cedar. As noted in the last report, we looked at parts of those neighborhoods within boundaries created by the Planning Commission while working on the Comp Plan, which depicted areas the commissioners believed should or could accommodate higher densities up to 16 units/acre. As noted in the last report, I found these borders controversial, but that is a matter to take up with the Planning Commission and not within the purview of this committee, though the matters are interrelated.

We began by reviewing the areas we had examined on the Red Cedar map at our last meeting, where city staff had drawn green outlines of areas that we had supposedly considered as potential areas for becoming donor or receiving zones for rental license transfers. It showed two areas outlined in green east of Narcissus. However. upon viewing these, Joanne Russell, who represents the Red Cedar neighborhood on this committee, raised objections to the areas and wondered why they were placed there. She stated that one area with houses numbering in the 900s was a stable mixed area. I had earlier that night submitted a memo to the committee that we did not discuss which also raisied some issues with rental license transfers (see below) and placement of zones for these. Joanne’s comments created consternation, since staff members and others had apparently misunderstood prior discussions about the area.

The discussion of the Red Cedar map led to a surprising result. Kathleen Boyle, also of Red Cedar, proposed that we no longer consider recommendations regarding rental license transfers, and certainly not make recommendations about where such areas might be. She and others noted that our committee has little time to consider all of the ramifications of such designations, and it is highly controversial. I noted that I might consider such transfers and C zones, but only seeing trying out the zone in a small area to find out the impact of such zones on the environs.

Kathleen then suggested that we focus our attention on the section dealing with modifications to non-conforming rental properties.

While discussing whether the committee should simply opt not to vote on the many recommendations concerned with rental license transfers (which also largely concerned the memo on zoning), Tim Dempsey (the city’s planning director) noted that we should consider the ramifications of not moving these ideas forward, given that we’d spent so much time on them. Although the committee did not vote on this, we did discuss some additional ideas on the matter. Brian Hagan suggested that property owners in areas of 300’ to 500 ‘ might choose to receive rental license transfers. I continued to suggest that neighborhoods should make these reommendations. Since we continued to discuss these idea, I have assumed we will perhaps vote on the memo, but I’m not sure.

We then turned to the ‘modifications memo.’ Davia Davis noted that she would like to see the section on allowing some modifications to rentals in exchange for improved landscaping to be moved to the section where we list types of additions. The section of the memo dealing with possible permissible additions to non conforming rentals lists the possibility of additions of 10% and 40% of square footage to a rental house. We added a 20% option as well. Note that these are options we can vote on, not options we include because committee members necessarily agree to them.

The committee’s next meeting won’t be until May 12th because the city staff will need time to compose a first draft of the committee’s report. I assume at this juncture that we will not be voting on this report on the 12th, but finalizing its form prior to voting at a subsequent meeting. But I’m not sure about this. There are many items on which to vote, especially if each of the nine members of the committee gives reasons for his/her vote on each or many of the items.

Here is a copy of the memo I gave the committee on April 21st: Note that I have sometimes suggested items to increase our options, but do not necessarily support the items I have suggested, or am still thinking about them.

Meanwhile, according to Mary Lou Terrien, the state House Committee for Local Government will probably be forwarding its proposed bill, HB 5041 (which would allow non-conforming rentals to make any changes that conforming properties can make), to the full House on May 4th. That puts pressure on our committee to hasten our final report, because this bill would override our local ordinances.

Comments on options (April 21, 2016)

Llicense Transfers Section:

In general, we need a strategy to designate donor and receiving areas or houses. What are the criteria? It would not be helpful, for example for a rental house on an all rental block to give up it’s license. It might not be helpful to have a block that has only one or two rentals to give that up. I would focus on decreasing rentals on blocks that are almost half to over half (3/4s) mixed, to encourage majority owner-occupied blocks, but not entirely owner-occupied blocks.

At the last meeting,

I suggested that donor and receiving areas be kept within single neighorhoods so one neighborhood does not dump its excess tenants in another neighborhood.

I suggested that neighborhood associations be empowered to designate the Class C areas, or play a large role in doing so.

These have not been added to the options.

Recipient Properties Section. Says “All recipient properties must be a conforming property.” But a receiving Class C property becomes conforming ONLY when the transfer is made. My understanding is that simply having a “class C” title does not give the Class C conforming status. ????

Why does this section list “existing single-family unlicensed rental.” An unlicensed rental is illegal, so that situation would have to be remedied if discovered. In that case, the house becomes a non rental.

Building Modification Section

Section 1: I would like to see options added in all categories of additions that do not allow new second stories.

Section 2: This Section should allow a design review board to consider both exterior and interior changes.

Interior modification section: Should we be allowing increases of occupancy in this section? Here we are defining what would be legal modifications for non conforming rentals, not increases in occupancy (which landlords have not requested).

Landscape Improvements and Driveway Paving: We should have a better idea of what the swap might be, and spell this out.

Zoning Options Section

Class C-8. This category seems to go against Ordinance 900 that was premised in part on behavioral and other problems with rentals that exceeded 2 unrelated adults or a family. We have no studies separating the code compliance records of rentals of more than 2/family with smaller ones. This category could create severe problems with parking, noise and maintenance. We don’t know. I would therefore recommend that we only accept this if a trial area is set up to see how such a zone performs.

Re: Section 9: I proposed this. My idea was that blocks that were entirely rental already with mostly nonconforming properties be allowed to modify their structures as conforming properties now can, but only for rentals with up to 4 unrelated. (This would return to the state prior to Ordinance 900 for some blocks, allowing up to 4 unrelated as a legal, conforming use. )