here.
» Emily Hamburg
» Here.
» Brandon Macintosh
» Present.
» And Mike Proctctor
» Present.
» And you have a quorum. Mayor.
» Thank you. This evening we have Father
Terry Hedrickk from Church of the
Resurrection on 37th Street to lead us
in prayer. Father is pinch hitting. I
had to beg him to come help us. So he he
agreed to come help us out today. So
thank you.
» Yes. Well, let's pray together
again. Our God, we gather in the name of
your son Jesus, giving you thanks that
you're present here now by your Holy
Spirit. And as we gather, Lord, we give
thanks that you are a good and gracious
God, abounding in mercy and steadfast
love.
And so Lord, we pray specifically
tonight for the city of Bair again for
the city council, especially for Jim
Bage, the mayor, also the leaders of the
community, but especially for our law
enforcement, firefighters, EMS, and all
of our first responders. So tonight,
lead and guide their decisions. We pray
that you will reveal to them the
knowledge of your will and all wisdom
and spiritual understanding in order
that they may be fruitful in your
service. Anoint them with your Holy
Spirit, a spirit of wisdom, charity, and
justice that with steadfast purpose for
the common good, they may faithfully
serve in their offices to promote the
well-being of all people in the Belair
community.
Grant that they may love mercy, do
justice, and walk humbly with you.
We ask all of this in the strong and
wonderful name of our savior Jesus who
lives and reigns with you and the Holy
Spirit, one God, both now and forever.
Amen.
» Amen. Thank you. Please join me in the
pledge of allegiance to the American
flag
to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all.
» Next item is to determine agenda
additions. Do we have anything to add to
the agenda?
» Mr. Mayor,
» Mr. Macintosh,
» I I do have an agenda addition. I'd like
to add a discussion about Woodlon
detour.
» Woodlon detour. Okay. Um, let's put that
as item
13D.
Okay.
» Thank you.
» Sure. All right. We will we will
consider that. All right. Very good. Any
other additions to the agenda?
There are none. We'll move on to uh the
consent agenda. So, it's a nice consent
agenda. includes minutes from the
previous regular city council meeting
and change order number five for the
2026 street maintenance program.
» Mr. Mayor,
» Mr. David,
» A motion to approve the consent agenda
as listed and authorize the mayor to
sign.
» Second.
» Motion by Mr. David, a second by Mr.
Dean. Any questions or discussion?
Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. All
in favor say I. I.
» I.
» Any opposed? Motion carries five to
zero.
Next item is uh appropriation ordinance.
So this encompasses expenses from the
July 29th through August 11th uh
expenses amount to 673,22.
Uh and of those expenses $245,816
are for infrastructure cost for new
developments and those costs are paid
through special assessments.
» Mr. Mayor
» Miss Hamburg.
» I'm going to make a motion to approve
appropriations ordinance number 26-15.
» Second motion by Miss Hamburg, a second
by Mr. Macintosh. All in favor say I.
» I.
» Any oppose? Motion carries. Five to
zero. Sorry, I didn't give anybody a
chance to ask any questions, so should
have. All right. Next item is uh
citizens concerns. Oh, no. I'm sorry. We
have city requested appearances. So, uh,
PEC traffic engineer Tim
» Azir, am I saying your name right? Azir
» Aer.
Okay, thank you. Uh, he's here tonight
to discuss his analysis of the
intersection at 53rd and Oliver and 53rd
and Web. So, Mr.
Thank you, Mayor and Council. Uh, staff
asked us to take a look at those two
intersections specifically. We conducted
a traffic count and ran stop sign
warrants to see whether a stop sign was
warded in in all four directions. Um,
and I think the memo that we provided is
should be part of your packet if I'm not
mistaken.
From memory, we met the crash warrant
for both intersections and we were very
close to meeting the eight hour warrant.
Basically being over a specific count
for eight hours of the day. You Each
intersection met seven clearly and my
recollection is the last hour was close
and one of them was close enough that if
we would have counted it a different day
during that week, it may have actually
met. So, we're recommending that both
those intersections be converted to a
four-way stop. One of those has already
been done. We wanted to get that done
before school started session and get
all of that in place so that it was not
something we were trying to do in the
first few weeks of school. uh that's
been accomplished and that's out there.
I'm sure you've seen it. The next one,
um our recommendation would be to do it
as soon as the signage comes down for
the previous intersection. Um not I
wouldn't recommend doing both of them at
the same time, but doing them staggering
in order so that that new change is
still familiar in everyone's minds. It's
not a requirement. It's just a
recommendation if you for whatever
reason want to push it off a few months
or however long. My only concern there
is we know that it meets because of
crash. So the longer you wait is the the
more danger that that will happen again.
Um with that I'll stand for any
questions that you may have.
» Any any have want questions for Mr.
» Mr. Mayor?
» Mr. Dean
» I did have one question. So, the the two
specific ones you're speaking about
tonight that the memo relates to is 53rd
in Oliver and 53rd and Web.
» Yeah.
» Um 53rd and Oliver is pretty clear to me
because it's very similar to the one we
just converted at Woodlon and 53rd. 53rd
and Web is a completely different
situation because of the fact that it's
a four-way or a four-lane highway or
four-lane main road with a two-lane
crossing. It was that a fact. Can you
explain how that may have played a
factor in how you analyzed it a little
bit?
» That doesn't play as much of a factor in
in meeting the simple warrants. Uh it it
it's a more complex situation, I'll
grant you, but the warrants themselves
are based on volume. So,
» It's something that we can discuss more
and and
work on how that solution should be
implemented if that's a concern that
council has. Uh the other one is pretty
straightforward and could probably be
done whenever. Um, but you're right,
that's it's a different situation
because it's additional lanes.
» Yeah. I mean, one of the things that
comes to mind is a lot of times when you
see, and I'm not saying we shouldn't do
it. I'm just saying it's obviously a
different situation than the last few.
Um, usually you see a divided portion of
the road with some sort of a median or
something so that there's a there's a
stop sign in the middle as well as on
the sides so that somebody can't just
blow through it or there is at least a
blinking light or something overhead so
that it catches
» I think not to cut you off but one of
the things that we've been doing is
adding the LED border to all the new
stop signs. So, I think that's something
that we would recommend also,
» Right?
» And that'll help. And we'll have
advanced warning signs coming up to the
intersection in every direction just
like the one we put in that says that
there's a stop sign ahead. A stop bar
also will go all the way across both
lanes.
» So, there's other indications, but
you're right. It's it's an additional
lane that it's not right there next to
you.
» Right. That design just looks and feels
a lot different to me. So, I just wasn't
sure if I know you're recommending it.
it meets the warrants, but how much
additional leg work are you seeing in a
design of converting that?
» There's there's not really room, if I'm
not mistaken, to put in a median or
anything. And it's a median is not
required in that situation. I I think
the other thing to probably think about
is
is there some sort of and we didn't we
weren't asked to look at this, so we
haven't looked at it. Is there a need
for a left turn lane in each direction?
So that that that inside lane turns into
a left turn lane, which
» Right
» I don't like doing because if you're in
that lane, your your lane just turns for
you and you have to know when to get out
of that lane. But it is a possibility if
it meets warrants and we have the
geometry to do so. Another part of that
equation is what the through volume is
and whether you really need four lanes
or not or if you can get by with one
through lane in each direction north and
south.
» My one concern and I know that um it's
not unheard of to have a stop sign at a
55 mph zone a speed limit, but that road
is a 55 mph speed limit on at 53rd and
web. The web is 55. And I just wonder if
maybe we would be wiser to also consider
reducing that speed limit. I don't know
what that should be, but
» I would I would recommend that. Yes.
» And it's part of a it's not all that
complex, but a speed study or speed
consideration for that to take it down
to 45 in either direction coming up to
that intersection, I think, is
definitely something that would be
advantageous.
» Okay.
Okay,
» Mr. Aser,
did have you ever experienced with a
four-lane uh stop sign like this where
things got worse because a stop sign was
installed? Has that ever been the case?
» Not not that we just installed. I think
there are a few locations where an
existing stop sign could have been a
problem. But again, it it often comes
down to volume and speed, both of which
speed we can control. Volume we can't
necessarily, but I don't remember the
volumes being so high that like we were
talking even the four laid may not be
required. I don't know the numbers off
the top of my head without looking at
them, but
generally that's a a much higher volume
and I without knowing what they are, I
would be surprised if they were enough
to warrant that for most of the day. So,
we could put in less. The the the
problem with those less in that
configuration is typically you'd want
those to line up so you don't have a
possibility for a conflict of turning
vehicles opposing each other and it's
clearer to see if you separate them and
set send them across the intersection.
Not only is there the opportunity that
they could hit each other, but also that
car now blocks through traffic in the
other direction, which shouldn't be a
problem at a four-way stop, but it's
always something and you can't
completely eliminate the the conflict or
the the opportunity for the crash. So,
all those are considerations that should
be taken into account if we're going to
talk about changing the geometry or the
configuration in any way, but it's all
something we can look at for you if
that's something that you think is
warranted.
» Thank you,
» Mr. Parker.
» Mr. Mayor, uh Mr. Asure.
» Okay. Uh, do we need to do a
uh traffic study to or I guess is this a
traffic study that would you could also
make that recommendation to drop the
speed down 45 or do we need to do more
for that?
» Uh, we could make a recommendation to
staff to do that. Um, I need to look at
it and have conversation with some of my
guys to make sure that the information
that I'm conjuring in my head right now
is accurate. But yes, it's could be
pretty straightforward.
Good. Uh, and of course we're not voting
on it, but but it sounds like we'd like
some more uh information on 53rd and
web.
» Yeah.
» Um, and I think 53rd and Oliver, we need
to just go do it, right? Okay. Uh, I
think that's within your authority to to
authorize that. Is that correct?
» Yes.
I think I'd like a motion, I think, from
the council just to make sure when the
time comes. Um, that would probably be
more clean for me. Uh, just with a few
traffic four-way stops, it helps uh even
with PR uh that the council made this
decision.
» Okay. Well, we we could do that now if
if somebody wants to make that motion.
Mr. Proctor. Wow.
» Mr. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion
that we um
put a four-way stop at 53rd and Oliver.
Uh also 53rd and Web and upon the
recommendation of the engineering firm
uh
with their direction recommendation
reduce the speed down to 45 miles an
hour.
I have Mr. A motion from Mr. Proctor for
a four-way stop at 53rd in Oliver and
additional four-way stop at 53rd in web
with uh recommendations from the
engineering firm to reduce the speed to
45 miles per hour.
Can I repeat that reasonably accurate?
You left out some stuttering.
» Okay. I I try not to do that, but I'm
not immune from it.
» Do we have a second on that motion?
» Okay. Well, Mr. Mayor,
» Go ahead. I I was just going to say
after we cleared that that I'd like to
decouple those because I do think until
we get more information on 53rd and web
till Tim can come back to us and say,
"Yep, this is the way we'd like to
proceed." I don't want to make a
decision on either the four-way stop at
53rd and web or the speed limit until we
have that additional information. So,
I'll go ahead and motion
uh for us to move forward with
installing a four-way stop at 53rd and
Oliver.
» I'll second.
I have a motion by Mr. Dean for four-way
stop at 53rd and Oliver with a second by
Mr. David.
» I have one point of discussion
» And time for discussion. This is right.
This is the time. Um, I know when we
installed the the four-way stop at 53rd
and Rock, I believe was the most recent
one.
» Most recent one was Woodline, but there
is a four-way stop at Rock as well.
» Um, I received several comments from
residents about the congestion and how
long it takes. Uh, one story was related
to me trying to go north on Rock Road.
Um, to get from the quick trip up to the
four-way stop took 45 minutes
for this individual. So, I'd like to
» 45th or at 53rd.
» Sorry, at 45th.
» Okay.
» Unfortunately, 45th and Wood and and
Rock Road is Witchaw's jurisdiction.
It's not Bell's jurisdiction.
» Okay.
» Mr. Mayor, I'll also add, Brandon, this
happened last time. Woodlon is supposed
to detour to Oliver, but a lot of people
are trying to use that route, and that
has caused a lot of backups. I see them
in the evening as well
» Because people are avoiding using the
Oliver or Edgemore, like there's
multiple routes, but I have noticed that
since we've started the Woodlon
reconstruction that
» It backs up. I know. I've seen it. So,
going I'm sorry to interrupt you.
» I've definitely noticed that. One thing
I'd like to know more about is just
based on traffic volume, if we install
this four-way stop, are we going to
cause a similar backup now on the west
side of our city where people are trying
to get through and it's just taking
forever because they're stopping all the
they everybody stops now. I'd like to
understand more about that before we
just go and do it. Um, with the crash
data, I understand it's a great idea,
but I'd like to understand the impact a
little bit more.
» So,
in general terms, anytime you add a stop
sign where there wasn't one before,
you're going to increase delay. That is
simple math. The the difference, I
think, is you're forcing that, let's
call it northbound, southbound traffic
because they're all essentially the
same. you're stopping that north south
traffic to allow people from the east
west direction to make that movement
safely, whichever movement they're
trying to make. That's the angle crashes
that we're seeing at those
intersections. That's what the pro the
majority of them are. And that's the
problem that we're trying to solve. And
from where we sit, it is
a safer situation to increase the delay
on north or southbound traffic to allow
that turn to happen and reduce crashes.
Yes. The downside is there is some
delay. What you're talking about is
excessive delay, which sounds like it
may be for a different reason than the
stop sign itself.
» Increased traffic, diverted traffic,
whatever that may be. And we could try
to look at it, but it is a much more
complex problem because it's a much
broader area. Um, at some point that
could become a citywide traffic study
that you do not want to pay for. Uh,
happy to do it, but maybe not the best
use of your funds. And it's also a
temporary problem.
» So, I don't know if I answered your
question or not, but
» You did. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor,
» Mr. Dh David,
» I guess I'll ask that question slightly
different way. Um, it didn't quite meet
the warrant of the 140. So, you got 210
going north and south at least and 140
going east and west. Um, do you know the
ratio of that? Because because like you
said, you're trying to solve the east
and west problem. Give them a chance to
» Yeah, but it's and I don't know the
ratio top of my head, but it's a
combination of the total volume. If all
your traffic's going to one direction,
you got nobody coming from the other.
Doesn't make any difference because you
don't need anybody. It's it's there's
enough coming that wants to turn or go
through and there's enough going the
other direction that it's preventing
them from doing so in a reasonable
manner.
» Speed's part of that. Um the high angle
crashes are are part of that because
that's the downside of not having enough
gap or sufficient gap to be able to make
that movement safely. Um I I'm not sure
that I understood which question you
were asking, but
» I was really going to ask that question
about web, but um it'd be good data to
have for Oliver as well.
» What the cross street,
» You know,
» What the cross street volumes are.
» Yeah. Because if you don't have a high
cross street volume, you're really not
solving the problem. But but what that
memo is telling you is
» It is
» I can show you what the counts are, but
those counts put into that
warrant actually it meets it at this
current state or it meets seven of eight
hours.
» Yeah, warrant D I thought we didn't
quite meet for Oliver,
» But it was close enough. I would say I I
can't remember the numbers off the top
of my head, but
» They were both close enough that it was
worth warranting even for just that one
warrant without the crashes included as
the a separate warrant that's met.
» I'm really complaining about the the
warrant. That that data to me doesn't
tell me the whole story. I want to see
what the ratio is between the two.
» I we have that data. I can provide it.
Yeah,
I think Oliver obviously warrants it,
but um I'd still like to see those
numbers, especially on
» I think the difference with web is that
not only is that north south traffic not
stopping, but also you've got a far a
further distance to travel to clear
those through lanes creating a
» A more unsafe situation and then you
bring speed into it and it takes it up
to a yet another level.
» Mr. Mayor, I was also going to say uh
you mentioned earlier the volume you
don't really have control. The honest
truth is we're a growing city and
growing cities do have more homes and
more homes produce more cars and more
cars produce more traffic and more
traffic produces more accidents. And so
part of what we're dealing with and
we're going to continue to deal with is
decisions like this. When is the time
right to do a four-way stop? When is the
time right to do a stoplight? Because
some of our intersections are probably
approaching that at some point, right?
And so this is not going away. And I
have heard the same concerns from a few
folks. I'll say a couple folks, like
very few people have reached out to me
also and said, "Please don't put up stop
signs because I don't want this to
inconvenience me." And I've seen enough
data in the crash data for the last few
years that I am comfortable with Oliver
and I am comfortable with with long beam
four-way stops because I know data
proves and proved out on rock that we
reduce the crashes. And so to me, this
is a no-brainer on Oliver. Um web
remains to be seen just because I think
there's a little bit more how are we
going to actually deal with that if we
move forward with the four-way stop and
actually do it safely. And I don't
otherwise I don't think there's any
question to me on Oliver.
» Okay. Mr. Bctor,
» Mr. Mayor, some comments I was I figured
I'd offer it is half I I guess Circle
School District starts half a mile east
of Rock Road and and how a lot of those
high school kids or uh that are actually
are starting to drive get to school or
could get to school is they can drive
over to Circle Greenwich Elementary and
then they and then they get bust on up
the highway. So there there are students
that are crossing going that way.
There's also students that um are
probably using that intersection leaving
the high school right over there and
even as you know someone who's been
driving a long time web that's all
that's all really uh kind of sketchy but
I'm not really sure what to do about it
even as our like our son starting to
drive and he'll be going over at some
point to cross web and I just I I think
about especially new drivers and I don't
know if that's even a data point of the
age of the drivers but I don't know that
it's that big of a factor.
It's not something that is part of what
we analyze as part of the warrant.
» Sure. Yeah. But um anyways, just giving
students even a safe way to get across
because I mean it's four lanes
» Split up going both ways pretty quick.
» Yeah, I I get it. I'm I'm a little
concerned about it myself. That's a
that's a wonky intersection because you
got four lanes uh north and south, you
got two lanes on the west side, and you
got three lanes on the east side. So,
it's like that's a it's a ma mix mass of
everything. So, that's that's what
pretty wild. But anyway, Miss Hamburg,
» I know we're on Oliver, but I'll make my
web comment too. One other thing I
mentioned to Ted was and just thinking
through how it is four lanes and you got
the speed change. We don't know what's
going to happen with 254 and um where
the interchange is exactly going to go
and development, but you never know
that. Another thing I mentioned to Ted
was the possibility of a cost sharing
with Witchaw at 45th and Web or the
airport authority. I I don't know what
that would entail to study that and and
maybe just do a traffic light there. I
know there's one further south. So So I
don't have a great answer on that, but I
thought it was maybe something worth
pursuing since a four-way stop might be
a little more complicated, but I I see
it both ways, but I'm totally in support
um of of the Oliver. I've seen so many
crashes and just the issues and the
development up there. So, I'll I'll be
supporting this specific motion.
» The warrant, just for discussion
purposes, the warrant for a stop sign is
far lower than what a signal would be.
And I don't know that again, I don't
know the numbers off the top of my head,
but I would be surprised if it was
enough to warrant a signal
» At 45th and web.
» Yeah. I I don't know.
» I know you guys counted that one. That's
it's an additional thing what I was
» Whether the city had counted it in the
last cycle is what I was trying to
remember and I can't
» Yeah
so if that's a concern we can also look
at that
» It was just it was just a thought and if
there was a cost sharing option there so
» Okay I might add we we mainly focused on
Oliver because that's that's where it
was but because we had Tim looking at
traffic studies we said hey will you
take a look at web so I I know there's
more work to do on web especially with
the way it looks out. We'll we'll work
on that and uh come back. And thank you,
Miss uh Council Member Hamburg, for
reminding me of the 45th and web.
There's two intersections on on web, so
we might take a little look at that as
well.
» Okay. Any other discussion? We have a we
still have a motion to vote on, so I
don't want to cut off discussion if
we've got any more to do. But if not,
I'll call for a vote. All in favor say
I. I. I.
» Any opposed?
That motion carries five to zero. Thank
you.
All right. The next item on the agenda
is citizens concerns. Do we have any
citizens here who wish to speak to this
council? Please come to the podium and
state your name, address, and uh we'll
give you three minutes.
» Thank you. My name is Keith Erlic. I
live at 4957 East Willow Point Court.
And I just read last week, according to
the Witchaw Eagle, that the city of Bair
is getting a Sinclair gas station. And I
got to ask why. You're putting a gas
station in the middle of the residential
area at 45th and Woodlon. At 45th and
Woodland,
no businesses have ever done well at
45th and Woodland. So now you're going
to put a business in there that's never
going to make it. And then you're going
to end up with environmental hazards
trying to pull the tanks out. And you're
talking about traffic. You're talking
about a 247 out 247 convenience store
that's going to draw the wrong kind of
people at the wrong time of the day.
It's going to tax our our police
officers who are going to have to be
patrolling that area. The city of Bair
is encircled by Quick Trips, Dillons,
Casey's, everything else. Why are we
trying to put a gas station at 45th in
Woodland?
This just does makes absolutely no
sense. I'm sorry. It just makes no
sense. So in the heart of the
residential district of Belair,
thank you. And you've got
$500,000 plus homes just a half a mile
down the road and you've got the
Catholic Life Center. You're talking
about additional traffic, everything
else. this place and you know this
business is never going to succeed and
they're not a cor good corporate
business at they have a store at 21st in
Woodlon and they're not a good corporate
business down there and as soon as the
quick trip at 21st and Woodlon is done
that store is going to be done. So why
are we authorizing somebody to build a
building that's never going to make it?
That's all I got to say. Thank you.
» All right. Thank you. I appreciate your
comments. So,
any other citizens?
I take it we don't have any others. We
we don't have any comment cards uh
» From the clerk. Okay. Thank you. Well,
we'll move on to council member reports
and we'll start with Mr. uh Macintosh.
» Trying to mix it up a little bit.
» Um we'll we'll cover mine in item 13D.
» Okay. Very good. Mr. Proctor.
No report, Mr. Mayor.
» Okay, Mr. David.
» No report. Thank you,
» Mr. Dean.
» Mr. Mayor, I do have one quick thing.
Yesterday, our K254 corridor development
association plan implementation
committee, I know that's a mouthful, had
a call uh we visited with several folks
from KOT to continue discussing um
federal grant opportunities and also a
little bit more in depth on what their
state funding options look like. Um
really the whole idea here is to try to
help um move forward some of the smaller
short-term improvements as a part of the
corridor management plan. So we're
trying to learn as much as we can so
that we can share that with our members.
Um I'm excited. There was a couple
really cool things that were shared with
us on the call about some opportunities
that were specific for corridor um
places that have corridor plans. And so
that was exciting and I'm looking
forward to sharing that with some of our
membership on Friday and continuing
discussing option options with KOT.
That's all I have.
» All right. Well, very good. Thank you.
Good to hear that. And uh Miss Hamburg.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh nothing report
worthy this evening. Thank you.
» Okay. Well, thank you. We'll move on.
Mayor's report. So on August 12th, I
attended the monthly WAMPO meeting and
we approved the fiscal year the federal
fiscal year 2027 through the federal
fiscal year 2030 transportation
improvement program. It's also known as
the tip. Uh projects must be in the tip
to be funded through the WARO process.
So, this tip includes 80% funding for
construction at 45th Street from Wood
Oliver to Woodlon and our bike path uh
trail uh phase one. So, those are both
in the tip. Now, uh WPO will be doing
their annual bicycle pedestrian activity
counts on September 16th, 17th, and 19th
this year. And they are again looking
for volunteers to help with this. Even
if someone can only do one two-hour
shift, uh that would be helpful. So,
more information can be found on the
flyer and I don't know if we got the
flyer posted yet, but is it is it
posted? Okay. So, we will have that
posted short uh probably the next day or
two. Uh or you can go to the website
wampo.org/volunteer
and volunteer that way as well, which I
think the flyer does the same thing to
get you to that same website. So, um on
August 13th, I attended the REIT
meeting. Uh that's regional economic
area partners meeting. Uh so we heard a
wrap-up of the preliminary primary
election by Dr. Eric Ston and we also
briefly discussed whether we should
provide a unified regional legislative
agenda. Um it appears that that was done
a few years ago but not in in the very
recent years. So no real decision was
made about that although I do think they
are trying to pull some data together to
put put such an agenda together for our
toa um contingency.
So this Friday August 21 the K254
cordial development association will be
meeting at 11:30 at the Benton community
room in Benton Kansas. So I'm sure we'll
be talking more about the things that
Mr. Dean talked about at that meeting.
Uh then also a reminder that this
Thursday, a week from Thursday, the 27th
is the local water consult which is part
of the state's regional water planning
effort and that will be from 9:00 a.m.
to noon at the Witchaw Public Library
Advanced Learning Center in downtown
Witchaw. Uh while we are not in any
drought emergency today, is important
that Kansas improve water management for
everyone's future. So, I'll now ask our
city attorney for her report.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, a lot of work
on processes has been happening lately.
One specific example, we've had some
civilians contact the city wanting to
know how to pay their citation. becoming
more familiar with Tyler, our system.
One of the most recent ways we've
learned how to pay is an individual can
literally enter into their vehicle
information and the state of that
vehicle, the license number, and they're
able to pay. This has been used uh and
practiced with. It's another way for
individuals to pay online. So, they can
just put in their license number and the
state, and they're able to pay through
Tyler. Uh again, this payment online
system is assisting with municipal court
and especially helping with individuals
who receive citations who live outside
the city limits. So if they're here
visiting out of state, they don't have
to come all the way back to pay that. Uh
the other thing I would like to mention
is uh next at our next meeting on
September 1, the council will receive an
ordinance regarding a uh the city having
a records management program. It is a
really it's a good opportunity for us to
have a consistent practice of record
management organization retention and
ultimate disposition. It will also help
with Kansas open records acts requests
that come in. We will know where these
uh documents are having official
custodians who will be assisted in
training. This has all been led in the
effort of the city manager. uh it's been
very helpful meeting with department
heads to find out what is helping with
them as well. And then finally if uh the
next ordinance after that would be an
update to our Kansas open records act
ordinance which would include new
legislative act enactments that took
place last uh year and then also
incorporate the processes and
definitions from a new city records
management program ordinance. That's all
I have. Thank you.
» Very good. Are just a curiosity
question. Are people able to just go to
the uh police clerk and pay their
traffic fines? Now,
» A person can walk in and pay that as
well.
» Okay.
» Just wanted to make sure that we were
able to do that. Sound like we're
getting all those technology, but some
people just want to pay cash, right?
Okay.
» All right. Very good. Thank you. Uh
we'll move on to our city manager
report.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council, uh hope
you've seen it by now. Woodline update.
Uh we posted yesterday that we're about
ready to complete phase one of the
project. Uh they lay an asphalt today I
believe and we'll finish up uh this week
and open up phase two next Monday. Um
again this too small to read here
tonight but um uh we'll move on to phase
two which is expected to be around six
months. It's a little difficult with how
much they'll have to treat lime that has
a and but we always have those estimates
with weather other delays. So, um that
that's just the best uh the best
estimate we have right now and we'll
we'll try every day to beat that. But,
uh we don't a lot of this is out of our
control.
On September 3rd, we'll have the area
Chamber of Commerce uh will be at
Walton's uh one of our community
businesses and touring that facility.
So, I think that'll be good. As well as
on September 12th, we'll have Art Turn's
memorial dedication. So, just few
updates for the council today and I'm
here stand for questions.
» Any questions for the city manager? All
right.
Um Okay. So, we don't have any
ordinance, resolutions, and file
actions. So, and we do have no need for
an executive session. Uh, so we're ready
to go to discussions, future issues. And
the first thing on that agenda is a
presentation on court code enforcement.
The Bair City Code allows unresolved
code violations to be referred to
municipal court when mun multiple items
to resolve the issue have been
unsuccessful. Um, multiple attempts. Uh
recently staff developed a process for
referring these violations to municipal
court directing community development.
Uh Paula DS is here to discuss the
process and provide additional
information. Miss DS.
» Thank you Mr. Mayor. Basically I just
want to let you all know that currently
in code we do have remedy options and
enforcement options. They just have not
been fully utilized in the past. uh
mostly because we didn't have an
identified process uh behind the scenes
and especially in municipal court. The
city attorney worked very diligently
with court staff, with the prosecutor,
with the judge to identify how these
cases would now be brought and developed
a whole lot of processes. Maria may want
to respond to that, but from behind the
scenes, I wanted you all to know that
those UCCC code uh violation uh reports
and letters will be going to people who
continue to violate code enforcement
outside of the violation remedy
processes. Uh it's very likely that you
will now be receiving a lot of phone
calls wondering why they're getting sent
to municipal court for nuisance and
building code violations. And I always
like to give the council a heads up to
know that those they that's in code now.
We're just going to avail those tools
now that we have implemented processes
behind the scenes and through municipal
court. Happy to answer any questions and
I know Maria spent a lot of time uh
working with municipal court to
establish those processes and I'm sure
she'll be flexible and answering
questions also if you have any.
So I do have a one one concern is what
is the impact to the court uh about how
many cases are we looking at concern
in addition to the cases we're already
hit that are already hit in municipal
court.
» So I can say that our code enforcement
officer does an excellent job in working
diligently. When I say diligently I mean
sometimes it stretches months. If they
are willing to make progress we are will
continue to work with them to make
progress. We do have individuals who do
not uh
want to remedy the situation, can't
remedy the saturation, whatever. We've
continued to work with them and try, but
those are long-term chronic issues. We
can guesstimate there might be an impact
initially of 12 cases or so. Past that,
I don't know what that would be on a
monthly basis or per coat court session.
Hope it's not huge and 12
» It's not huge. I
» 12 doesn't seem unreasonable. So,
» But we are very reasonable. There are
just some right now that we've been
trying to work for with months and they
just they will not comply. So, we're
going to avail this tool.
» Okay. Well, I appreciate that.
» Any other questions for Miss Towns on
these enforcement actions?
Unfortunately, we have some that just
need to need need to go that route, but
unfortunately,
» Well, if there's no other questions or
discussions, we're going to move on to
the Woodlon detour uh request that Mr. U
Macintosh asked for. And the reason I'm
putting it in now is because uh we were
asked to do that before we start into
the short-term rental discussion by our
city manager. So,
um, so it's your question, so
it's your turn to speak.
» All right. Um,
I think we all received an email from
uh, Mr. James Small, I believe was his
name. Uh, he made some good points in
his email along with some things that I
have noticed and witnessed just through
that neighborhood. If you look at the
map up on the board here,
phase one is what's currently closed.
And what we're seeing is the
neighborhood that is at the top of this
screen, which is to the west,
rather than motorists taking the
official detour along 45th down Oliver
or along Oliver and then up 37th.
People are taking a shortcut through
this neighborhood and we're seeing
massive
massive increase in traffic volumes
through this little neighborhood um
along Quail Ridge, Edenburgg and then I
believe it's is it Danbury?
» Peritton. Thank you.
Um within a week of phase one being
closed, um city staff was very quick and
diligent putting up stop signs at many
of those intersections. That helped a
lot with near misses and people just not
paying attention because those roads
weren't designed for this kind of
traffic volume. Um but the volume is
still there. Um
according to Mr. smalls email. Traffic
is a combination of residents and
trucks, very large trucks, semi-truckss,
cement mixers, lots of pickup truck uh
trucks with trailers and equipment,
and just a ton of mixed traffic that
should not be going through this
neighborhood.
Do we have any means to try and mitigate
some of this traffic volume? Um, I know
we've got the official detour signs up.
Is there anything more we can do?
» Since these roads are public streets,
um, there's not a whole lot that I know
of that we can do because the public is
allowed to traverse these streets. Um
there, if I remember correctly, there
may be weight limits on some of those,
but our police department does not have
any way of weighing vehicles at this
point. Um so that would be something
that would need to be addressed with the
police chief. What do you need to start
weighing these vehicles? Um I'm not sure
if Miss Shrock has any information but
whether the city has any codes or um in
the STTO whether there's any um
any fines or any kind of measures to
discourage that. Um but since it is a
public road, you know, I I do understand
and I feel for the folks that live along
there, we do have the official detours
set up. Um, you know, besides that, I'm
not sure what we can do. I have been
told of cement trucks, etc. Um,
construction vehicles using that. I have
checked with the contractor and those
are not Pearson construction vehicles.
Those are we have a lot of other
construction going on the city, you
know, between buildings and folks trying
to get windows done or sighting or
whatever have you, you know, normal home
events and they're most likely
associated with those and not with the
Woodlong construction project. So short
of that being said, you know, I'm not
sure and kind of working with the city
attorney and the police chief, I'm
really not sure what else we can do if
the council has any concerns and notices
as we shift into phase
two. Um, please let me know. You know,
we can let Ted know. We can also always
throw some stop signs up. I know the
police department does do additional
patrols out in that area. if they see
unsafe driving behavior, they do make
sure to to stop that as long as they
have, you know, the means to do so.
They're not just going to stop somebody
because they're going through a street.
So, because it's not a private street,
there's, in my understanding, there's
not a whole lot that can be done. But
Maria, do you have any other thoughts?
location.
» Well, let me let me just say a little
bit of this is academic because this is
we're going to phase two Monday. Okay.
So, that will stop that traffic pattern.
But
» There'll be a new traffic pattern. I
don't know what that's going to look
like.
» And so, in in that respect, it's it's
it's not academic because there going to
be a new traffic pattern. We just don't
know what it's going to be. Uh we can
make some guesses, but we don't know.
But just a question, would we be wise to
put up assigned no trucks like at
Danbury when uh that when that uh moves
to phase two?
» That would most likely take council
action. I am looking at Maria because
I'm not entirely sure what that would
take. And
from my limited understanding, there
would have to be a definition of truck.
» Yeah. Well, we don't have I mean,
» I'm I'm not sure.
» So, the roads aren't built for
commercial vehicles. They're built or
maybe we should say no commercial
vehicles. I don't know. But they're not
to to this gentleman's point. I I I did
not get this email, so I don't I I know
nothing about it. But, uh
there those roads are not obviously
built for continuous use by commercial
vehicles. So, um maybe that would be an
appropriate thing to do. I don't know.
I'm just just throwing out ideas.
» No. And I I appreciate that. That's
that's kind of what we want to hear. Um,
if you guys have ideas, I would
» Ask just for some time to meet with the
Maria and the police just to make sure
that we have definitions correct.
» Mr. D,
» I think I I I agree that there's an
issue there. I think you're right. It's
going to change. It's going to change
the pattern. My guess is it's going to
solve it a little bit because it's going
to be a lot longer of a travel through
residential streets. It won't be a quick
skip and a jump. But I have seen on
projects a lot of times local traffic
only signs posted or even a barricade
that's entering the residential area
that kind of makes it look like it's
closed. It doesn't say closed, but it
then on that barricade says local
traffic only. I would suggest doing
something like that, but I think maybe
we wait till phase two starts and then
kind of study it a little bit and decide
where those might need to go. Um or
maybe we just kind of do it at the
beginning of phase two just so it's a
like a new a new process, a new normal
kind kind of thing. Um
this happened last time too. The only
thing that was better about last time,
I'll just say this from my experience is
we carried traffic through Woodlon one
way. It was only one way though. It was
northbound. So traffic had less of an in
interest in trying to do this shortcut
stuff because they would just take
Woodlon. They just make sure that they
were on the south side and they could go
north. Um, but this did happen last
time. It wasn't as bad as that specific
section, but when we made the decision
to fully close it in the effort to try
to hopefully speed up this
reconstruction, which would ultimately
reduce the overall traffic impact on
everybody. This is just kind of part of
that issue. I think um last time the
bigger issue was it seemed like um
Edgemore got a lot more traffic and
there was lots of people always
complaining about how Edgemore cut over
to 38th or something and then went to
37th and there was always a backup there
because people couldn't turn left at
37th and whatever that road was and so
people wanted they demanded I had
several emails demanding you have to put
up a a stoplight there a temporary
stoplight and that was a request of
several folks and it just wasn't
feasible for the amount traffic that you
know is on 37th. It was hey follow the
posted detour then you won't have to sit
in line like so I think you have to
balance this a little bit. People have
to understand that's going to happen if
people don't follow the posted detour.
And if people in these neighborhoods are
doing that you know part of it is it's a
convenience for them. It makes it a
little easier to get to their house that
might just be on the other side versus
the whole detour. That's probably
happening too. Um so there's kind of a I
see this all the time. road projects,
they're always the same, right? Whether
you post a detour or not, people don't
follow it. Uh, but I would like to think
that we could get construction traffic,
especially
dang sure, making sure that the
contractor on the job knows that that is
not a construction route at all. You
need to be driving through the work
zone. And I think we if we put up some
local traffic only in barricades type
like type two type three barricades not
just a sign something that's right there
next to the road that makes it a little
should I be doing just gives a little
bit more stress I think could help. I
just don't know if we want to decide now
just do it put it on the residentials
around phase two or do we wait and put
them up when we see a problem.
But that's my kind of two cents. So, I
don't think we're going to eliminate it.
Um, but we that may make it better.
» Mayor Minaj. Oh, sorry. Uh, this I
appreciate the conversation. This is
kind of the precise reason why I have
staff meetings on Wednesday mornings
because uh I think when we identified
kind of the issues with phase one. I had
Ann, Marty, and Chief in the same room
and we tried to work out the best
feasible solution to our problem at
hand. So, I appreciate the conversation.
and I'm taking it all down. And uh
that's something that we will discuss
tomorrow morning and I'll report back to
the council and we'll do our best to
help control somewhat of a almost an
uncontrollable situation. Uh but we will
do our best and I hope uh exactly that
that's a difficult ask but we will do
our best.
» Okay, Miss Hamburg,
» I was just going to say I Council Member
Dean's suggestion about barricades. They
had those um they were doing the
roundabout up Meridian and into Valley
Center and just visually I don't know
how it would work on that tighter street
but where I don't know if that wouldn't
help with the truck traffic that goes oh
you know if you're you know a private
vehicle and you can skirt through there
if you still want to do that but tearing
up the streets back there if there was
an relatively easy way I don't want to
weigh trucks but you know or even just
an education component the chief could
do um but I think the barricades idea is
kind of good. That might deter enough
people to slow it down back there. So
» Yeah, just
» Mr. Macintosh,
» I I I concur. I like the barricades idea
and if we do it, I'd say we do it in
conjunction with starting phase two.
Make that happen right away so that
nobody gets used to the idea of going
through this neighborhood before those
go up.
» I would I would agree. I'd probably tend
to lean that way. And and just to
clarify, these would not block the road
in any way. They would be set kind of
right next to the curb in the grass like
in our rightway area. That's usually how
I've seen it done. Um if you have four
lanes, a lot of times we'll even block
the outside lanes and force traffic that
is local to use just the two lanes. But
in this case with residential, you won't
be able to block the street at all.
» We may be able to block partially block
like put it halfway in the grass and
then halfway on the street just to give
a little bit more of a
» Little tighter. Yep.
» Yeah,
» This one may go both Danbury and
Edgemore.
» Correct.
» We might need to look at both of those.
So, just we don't know. We just have to
see what happens. Monday,
» I have to be flexible and adjust on the
fly.
» Right. Okay. All right. Good discussion
and uh um I know that Ted will work on
on solutions. So, great. Thank you.
» Thank you.
» All right. Uh the next one is a big item
on the agenda tonight is uh discussion
presentation of draft document for
short-term rentals. So staff has
developed a preliminary draft of
short-term regulations for review and
it's the draft is intended to gather
feedback from planning commission and
city council before any final
regulations are proposed. And again Miss
Downs is here to uh present the
information and she has my list of 28
questions. So,
» Thank you for those 20 questions, Mayor.
I appreciate it. This document before
you that was included in your packet is
really designed to make sure that you
understand u all the feedback that I've
received to date. All the questions
we've received from date to date, the
research that was completed and some
best practices items were put together
collectively into this document. It is a
really preliminarily working document um
that still needs to be evaluated in in
multiple ways. Um, I don't think I need
to read the staff report, but what I
wanted to highlight are just a few
things is that the sections um changed a
little bit since the last time you've
seen it. Um, we've updated it. We've
made um we've captured everything that
you requested. We also put language to
that and built it out. The text has been
much further uh built out as you can
see. It's grown quite a bit. But that is
just to give you the opportunity to
review um what that could look like.
it's not set in stone. It's not the
final document. Um and that um um there
are some legal and order of sections
that need to be worked out, but also we
are having to um get some additional
feedback from you on a couple of key
issues on whether we should include
these things that have come up um since
we've talked last. So, a couple of
things that we're requesting feedback on
um are set out in the report. basically
about whether these ST these short-term
rentals STRs are able to host gatherings
or events. Sometimes they'll rent a
home, they'll have a wedding, they'll
rent the home that might have a huge
graduation per you know uh event. So
whether we want to include that, that's
a topic that was not discussed before,
but it appears in several um STR
regulations across the state. And also I
want you to know that one of the other
requests um for feedback was related to
the overall process related to we're
still trying to um clarify and define
what it means to have a public hearing
an appeal process. It's a little fuzzy
right now. And so what we did initially
was think about how a regular case would
proceed through our codes, which is
planning commission would review it.
They'd make a recommendation to city
council. City council would uh decide on
the case. Um we're realizing that
there's a step that has to be resolved
in the time that I receive an
application to review. right now if they
meet all the recommendations or all the
requirements of the regulations as
presented it has to be approved.
The next piece is that they or if I deny
it then they have an appeal process but
then how do the surrounding property
owners potentially be involved in
protest petition processes? This is a
still a little unclear. We haven't
worked that out quite yet. So, I wanted
to go on record saying that that is not
a clean section because we're having
some difficulty trying to figure out how
to not only set up the process that
allows that discussion, but also um how
best to handle that. So, um when this
document hit, the mayor is correct. He
he responded and provided some um
initial comments back. But I also want
to say that even though the short-term
rental regulations is a new regulation,
it also has several elements that are
contained in other areas of our code.
So, for example,
um
there are I know that I've said this
before, there are several things that
are occurring right now. We're updating
the zoning code. We also are still
trying to address um the details set
forth in SP 418 and we are trying to
write short-term regulations. There are
some elements in each of those that
affect each other. So our hope was
initially to have the STR regulations
back to you and approved yet this year.
However, as we've continued to go
through and start thinking about the
development of the zoning codes and some
of those areas, short-term rentals will
play a role in making modification to
our zoning code. For example, back to my
original for example, um the short-term
rental regulations are going to state
and we've had discussions that say that
they will be allowed in single family
and two family districts. Okay? So we
can have the regulation, but in the
section of our code about zoning
districts, we have to put language in
there that says this is a permitted use.
So they are tied together and
intertwined quite a bit. If we make
parking requirements, the parking code
would need to reflect what those parking
requirements are or we'd have to
reference it correctly from the
short-term rental regulations. So it
will have an administrative component,
how they submit applications, how the
applications are reviewed, what we ask
them to post, and it'll also intertwine
with what we need to put into the zoning
regulations. So the document before you
just to acclimate you has everything in
it in one place. And once we determine
what sections stay, what sections may
need to go, maybe what may not need to
be there at all, then we will know
better which part of the code we need to
modify.
It's very complex. I'm sorry. I wish I
could make it simple, but um because the
administrative piece might fall within
the business licensing piece or
permitting piece or it may all go into
the zoning code regulations and then
reference other things. So, um, we're
hoping that we can get some guidance and
some general discussion here so we can
continue to refine the document, but
also let you know that in the flow of
how these other projects are affecting
are being affected by each other that we
will probably be finalizing
and asking for approval at the same time
that we're going through the zoning code
and asking for approval so that all the
language matches. Part of what we've
experienced so far, and I think I've
said this before related to the zoning
code, is we'll change one section and
then we don't change the other section
or we copied and paste and it doesn't
it's not coherent. And so this time, if
we're going to start foundationally, I
want to make sure that it's coherent so
that if we approve the STRs ahead of the
zoning code, we're not coming back in
January modifying the STR codes again or
the zoning codes again to match that.
So, I just wanted to set that tone. But
at this point, I would love to have
whatever feedback that you have uh
related to this document and or
encourage you that if you don't, please
continue to send that to me behind the
scenes in an email because it's very
helpful for consideration.
» Mr. Mayor, Mr. D,
» First of all, Paula, thank you very much
for putting this together because it is
super comprehensive. Um, it probably has
everything you probably could have found
in every bit of research you did, which
is good because that's a good starting
point, but won't be where we finish and
we all know that. May I make a
suggestion?
» Absolutely.
» I have enough comments here and I'm sure
everybody does and if we really want to
give you good feedback and get you on
the way with here's what we want, here's
what we don't want. We don't need to go
line by line, but I think at least page
by page or maybe main section by
section. So, A, B, C, D, and just kind
of clear it with everybody to see if
there's any specific feedback because I
don't want to be just rattling these
off. I think it'd be probably more
efficient if we just all chimed in on
part A, let you take notes, chimed in on
part B. Is that Does that make sense?
Does everybody agree with that approach?
» Yeah.
» Otherwise, we could be here a lot
longer.
Yeah, we could do that or you could give
her individually the information, but um
yeah, that's that I'm okay with that. I
have mine explained.
So,
» I was about to send a really long email,
but then I was like, you know what,
we're going to workshop this. I'm just
gonna
» Yeah,
» I'm just going to fire away.
» But that's kind of where I was
suggesting. I don't know if anybody has
any significant changes to that
recommendation, but
» Mr. Proctor.
» Um well, Mr. Mayor, it it sounds like
you already sent an email that's kind of
similar to maybe what M Mr. Dean was
possibly considering. Um I mean it
sounds like it it it doesn't look to me
like it's ready for prime time. Um and
so maybe that would be just a helpful
next step is just to email suggestions
around it rather than sit here for
» Some time.
» We had a short meeting. I think we just
hammer through it personally so we can
get this I think it'll take us at least
an hour.
» Personally, if we if we start going
through it, I think it'll take us at
least an hour. So, it's it's it's the
council's call. It's not I I'm okay
either way, but I appreciate that that
suggestion. So, um,
» And I hear your I hear your suggestion,
but there are folks that are waiting on
this and I understand you're needing to
make it line up with zoning and so maybe
that means this isn't finalized till the
end of the year or whatever, but there
are people that are watching and wanting
these decisions to be made. And I
actually think it's really healthy for
us to sit up here and debate each point
and decide on it and just move it
forward because Paul at the end of the
day, she's only going to go as fast as
we're going to make decisions. And even
if we keep sending her emails, she's
gonna try to get consensus, but we're
still going to be up here at some point
having
» At some point. We're gonna have to have
that.
» We're just gonna have the debate at some
point.
» So,
» Yeah. But as far as tonight goes, I I
I'm just maybe throwing out there. If
there's that many comments to be made,
» We probably have a dozen,
» Right? Because I mean, I see a lot of
red over there. Um
» I think I can get through it.
» I'd like to hear what Miss Hamburg has
to say.
I just I kind of had a question along
those lines too that might relate to
that probably from Miss Shrock. So, one
comment I got was, "Oh my gosh, this is
almost 40 pages and we know it's
preliminary, but if we're going to list
out this much detail, it is going to be
long when it's finished." So, like for
our good neighbor policies, like with
our fee schedule, we reference the fee
schedule in the ordinance and then we
can make changes to that. It doesn't
make you have to reapprove the
ordinance.
Uh, Maria, is there M. Is there a um
will this just be one gigantic ordinance
or will there be portions of it that we
can reference and maybe if once the
rubber meets the road we can make
updates without touching the whole
ordinance again?
We were literally just talking about
that earlier today. If there are going
to be any type of fees
regarding this ordinance and if council
wants to put that into a fee schedule,
then every time that fee changes, then
the fee schedule would need to change.
The ordinance would need to change.
Unfortunately, there's no getting around
that. Uh but but I meant in ter I was
just kind of analogous to that. But in
terms of like some of these nitty-gritty
things about are you gonna leave your
porch light on, you know, all the time.
Are we going to allow that? Like is
every single detail is going to have to
be part of the ordinance or is there a
way we can reference the good neighbor
policies without touching the ordinance?
So, I'll just say this generally
speaking, there there's going to be an
opportunity in the regulations
themselves that could potentially
reference other parts of the code
without detailing it this. So, I'm
trying to think. I'm going to throw a
ridiculous requirement out, but if you
say
we I we say in here we talk about water
and trash service needing to be
maintained and in what level, but we do
have a requirement for water to be
turned on to residences under part of
the codes. Alls I'm saying is is that's
important, but we're going to compare it
to what's in the code to make sure it
matches. And then what we would say
because the short-term rental
regulations I think where this all
started was do you have short-term
rental regulations in your code? The
answer was no. It's peacemilled for this
will collectively bring it together. And
I would say that in this short-term
regulation section, we would say water
is required to be on at the residence at
all time per the city code. If that code
changes, we're not changing this code.
We're just changing whatever references
it. So there will be some reference
points in here. The the language is in
here just to make sure that there
doesn't need to be any changes made as
we're making changes to the zoning code
related to that. So you will see some
references, several of them as as a
matter of fact because we do have other
codes already in place. We just want to
make sure they marry up. Does that
answer your question?
» Yeah, I think so. Thank you.
» Welcome. I think the other really
important section part is um are there
wholesale sections that need to be
removed?
Are there wholesale sections that might
be missing? Um and I wouldn't anticipate
that you would want to word smmith every
section at this juncture, but ask
questions about, hey, what about this?
We need better language. Um and the
mayor did a great job providing like,
hey, wait a minute, let's talk about the
language related to this. And that's
what I'll do. I'll go back and look for
the language and we'll modify it out.
But if there are any wholesale ways in
which we want to re, you know, remove
something or this is this is way too
much Paulo or we don't want to have
gatherings or we do have want to have
gatherings. Uh we don't care if they
leave solar lights on their property,
you know, all the time. Take out that
language. Right. So, um I guess that's
would be my initial guidance related to
this phase of the project.
Well, I'll get us started then. Um, I
personally, in my opinion, just kind of
reading through how detailed the
gatherings and events section was. It
was like three pages and we're trying to
define like four different event types.
As I read through that, I said, great
example of too much red tape. I think
that most Airbnb, VBO, short-term
rentals even have policies that don't
allow those or most uh hosts don't allow
those. Anyway, what I would suggest is
that we focus more on total occupancy of
the STR
uh which I think you did a really love
really good job of defining that and I
actually thought that
» Excuse me, Mr. Dean. U there was there
was a suggestion that we not go through
the detail and I want to get a sense of
the council if we're going to do that or
if we want to send those comments to
Paula let her regurgitate all those
comments try to uh make some estimate or
some sense of what that might look like
and then come back to us then we can
have that discussion uh at a at a later
time. I'll disagree on this specific
item only because Paula just directed us
to say if there's areas you want
completely removed, that's what I'm
speaking to right now.
» I can also offer that
» Can be done in
» There's not a detail. It's it's a
wholesale of that section. I don't think
it's needed.
» Okay. I I I appreciate that. U
» And I can also offer
» Let me get a sense.
» Sure. And I can also offer moving
forward however you decide. I can also
um provide the um comparison. So this is
these were all the sections and this was
the language that was in the original
document. These are all the comments
that I heard. So you understand why
document has also changed. So there'd be
a comparison. So you may send 15
comments, mayor might send 20. You might
not know what those comments are and I I
will keep up with a comparison so you
know where they're coming from moving
forward. So if something's lost and and
we change the language and the rest of
the council says, "Wait a minute, we
want that back." At least you'll know
what that is. So,
» Yeah, I don't I don't personally like
that because I think we're going to get
to a point where we're just straight up
debating and I'd rather get the
wholesale changes agreed to, at least
the big changes agreed to, uh, sooner
rather than later instead of sending
individual emails and then trying to
track what was removed and what wasn't.
» Okay, so let's get a sense of the
council. Do what do we want to do
tonight? Do we want to go through this
now section by section or do we want to
send the email to Paula, let her
regurgitate all those emails, try to
come back with a different with an
updated document and you know just I
just need to know what the sense of the
council is before we spend a lot of time
on it.
» I'm prepared for discussion. That's
what's on
» I understand I understand your point.
Okay,
» Let's hear from the other council
members.
» I I think we should go through it. I
think it's important that we do this in
open meeting when we can all talk about
it
» And I think our citizens care about
this. They want to know we're discussing
it and they want to hear this
discussion.
» Okay.
» I think we should go through it right
now even though it may take an hour.
» Okay, Miss Amber.
» This is not a rubber stamping kind of
council. We're we're going to duke it
out at some point. I suppose now might
as well it may be not every line by item
but like you said if it's like consensus
is hey let's ask this then we can know
that now and continue to refine it
» Mr. David
» I was fine with the email version
» But uh sounds like we're I'm outvoted
that's fine we we can go through it
» Mr.
Um, my sense of it is it sounds like
there's enough big things that would an
email would cut our debate time down
significantly if we could get those
resolved.
» Um, and so maybe have a better starting
point because Paul has already kind of
» Said, "Hey, there's some stuff in here
that it's going to change."
» Um, so that that would be my suggestion.
Of course, we're going to talk about it
in depth. I just, you know, if it's, you
know, 45 minutes versus a I don't think
it'll stop at an hour. I I I think it'll
take longer than that. But
» Yeah, I
» I would suggest too that this isn't the
last draft. We're going to see a couple
more drafts. So, uh if we can get some
of the heavy lifting done tonight, at
least some of the really obvious things
we can agree on, the next draft will be
a little bit cleaner. The next draft
will be a little cleaner.
» All right. So, the consensus is more of
like a three to two, but so we'll we'll
go we'll go through it. Um let's so
continue on with your uh your statement,
Mr. Dean.
» Thank Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So that I
was just going to start with the the one
that was kind of most obvious to me just
to wholesale remove that section and and
I'll I'll try to remember how I started
that. But essentially I read through the
gatherings and events. Um and there's
like three pages here and I get it
right. There's lots there's lots of
cities that decide to be very very
prescriptive.
» Can you be specific as to what section
you're referencing?
» Sorry. So if you're following along or
if you've took notes, it's section V as
in V as in Baker.
» V as in Victor.
» V as in Victor started on page 17.
So, gatherings and events. After reading
through it, I just thought this is a
great example of over complicating it,
and I know other cities do that, and
we're not one that tends to do that. My
initial gut reaction to it was most of
these, and I've, you know, most of us
have probably used a short-term rental,
and a lot of them, the host has a
policy, no gatherings, no parties, all
that stuff's usually a part of your
contract with the host. So, it's kind of
a best practice anyway. But where I go
with this is if we're going to have a
short-term rental regulation and Paula,
you did a great job. I was trying to
commend you when we got stopped. I
thought the the the section where you
did talk about occupancy and numbers
for, you know, defining a bedroom,
numbers per bedroom was really well laid
out. And I don't know the numbers are
exactly where we'll be, but the
structure is really good. I tend to
think that we can simplify this by
saying no gatherings and that you have
to meet the occupancy requirement. I
think there was a couple of different
deviations to that. There was a
nighttime occupancy or an overnight
occupancy and then there was I think a
reference to like daytime allowing for
guests like additional people. I I would
tend to think we just go get rid of a
gatherings provision altogether and just
say you have to meet these these
specific occupancy requirements. And um
so that's kind of my thought just on
gatherings. I've got some other thoughts
on parking that's kind of related but
it's a different section. So, I'll stop
there, but that's my two cents.
» Okay. So, we're looking at section V as
in Victor and talking about gatherings.
Uh my only two comments on this were
that paragraph 4D uh says where's the
where is the permit defined? Because I
didn't see that, which is somewhat of a
a trivia type thing, but needs to be
looked at. And then this paragraph
seven, the permits require a lot more
than seven days from application to
event date and we need to say how far in
advance those applications need to be
made. Those are my only comments about
section B. But are there other have
comments?
» Mr. Mayor,
» Uh I
partially agree with Mr. Dean. Um I I
think section V we could wholesale
delete. Um we is uh my my note was is
this section even necessary? We cover
parking, we cover noise in other
sections. Um occupancy is part of it,
but as long as parking and noise are
covered, do people care about occupancy
park? They they care that they can still
get to their home. They care that they
can enjoy their own space. If parking
and noise are covered, why do we care
about gatherings? I I would be a
proponent of just deleting or very very
making this a tiny section. Um just
maybe a paragraph if that.
» Any other comments on this section?
» And if not we'll
» One more.
» Okay. Um
the later portion of the gatherings and
events seem to be more geared toward
um like almost using an STR as a venue
space.
» Does this really fall under STRs?
Having a venue like if I'm thinking I
have a 5 acre property that I want to
lease out to somebody holding a wedding.
Does this really fall under our STR?
ordinance.
» It does now.
» Okay.
» I put it in
» Stays here.
» I I put it in, but I can look um
let me let me ponder that just a little
bit because there is a use issue related
to properties about how the property can
be used. And so if they're temporarily
um renting it, does the city want to
allow, you know, 500 guests for a
backyard wedding because they can put
500 chairs in the backyard? But it goes
back to what you said are related to
parking is another issue that they're
going to have to face. And then um uh
noise, but can they get an what you're
really asking is can they get an event
permit at a residence? So, I'll look at
that section of the code just to clarify
what that language might say.
» Sure.
» Thank you.
» So,
» Yeah, just a good thought. I mean,
because the venue portion, I was reading
through that. I was like, does this
apply? But maybe this section just kind
of spitballing a little bit is limited
in the fact that it's very specific to
large events that would exceed the
capacity or whatever. And the reason why
I was going to bring up parking is it is
it is related. It is. And I think
occupants and parking are really
related. But maybe this is a section,
but it's not allowed unless it's an
event that's permitted, a venue, you
know, a venue that's permitted. And
maybe it's an additional step. Like it's
not it's under the STR, but maybe it's a
a separate type of process. But I do
agree, Paula, there are lots of event
venues and STRs that kind of go combo,
right? Like you can rent the house and
they've got a bar. And I've seen that.
That's the thing. I don't know that we
have that in Bair. We may um I also
would say we can add to this code if we
start seeing issues. If we have a case
by case that we keep seeing okay we need
to we need to amend the code. So we
don't have to get this 100% perfect. Um
but
» Sure
» I could see maybe having a small blurb
covering a more of a venue setup.
» Yes.
» Any other discussion on section V?
Mr. Parker? Yeah, I I I second the
practical approach of if parking's
addressed and there's some other things
like, you know, do we need to find more
things to try to pick apart?
» Yeah, I I think the spirit of that that
comment is is I think I agree with it,
too. I think that it's probably
overkill.
So,
» Want to move on to another item? It
sounds like gatherings is maybe shot uh
t parking requirements. My my general
thought when I read through this was a
little bit I did start thinking about
size of house capacity. I did like how
in the occupancy piece which is a again
these are kind of related so I'll
probably talk both a little bit. It
seems to me that, you know, if you think
through a normal home, you know, four or
five bedrooms in Bair and if you have,
you know, the two occupancy and um you
have the extra two or three guests,
whatever you decide, whatever we decide
there, your average home is going to
have between 12 and maybe 15 people that
are permitted to be there overnight. And
I think there was a suggestion in this
code that there is a offsite or I'm
sorry off-site off streetet parking
requirement per bedroom. So I mean in
most cases a five you know even if you
get a sixbedroom you've got a two or
three car garage. You've got probably a
driveway that can hold three or four
cars. Now is it inconvenient for the
short-term rental person that has to
move cars around? Yeah. But it's not
inconvenient for the neighbor that
doesn't get blocked by the person that's
renting it. So, there's a little bit of
that that goes on, but just parking in
general. I don't really like the idea of
being super prescriptive and requiring a
parking plan and going just over
government on this. I feel like
occupancy and parking are pretty tied.
And I think if you set that at a a
number and you say STR of this size has
to provide off-site off streetet parking
and then only their guests, right? You
can't legally keep people from parking
on the street, right? there's going to
be a situation that occurs where there
are guests that come over and there are
going to be a few people that park on
the street legally. Now, if they're
legally parked, that's a different
thing. But legally parked on the street,
I think you're going to have some of
that. But if you mitigate the size of
the occupancy, it's not 20 or 30 people
staying at this place or having a party,
a massive party. I think a lot of your
parking issues
tend to minimize quite a bit and might
not cover 100% of your cases, but
probably 90% are going to resolve just
based on that. So, with that in mind, in
the spirit of that and simplifying, I
think the parking requirement section
should stay, but I think it should be
referred or referenced back to occupancy
and let's just come up with a number
that we feel like maybe covers most
cases and try to just set that up so
it's very clear. And I think that'll
mitigate a lot of problems. It's not
going to solve every problem, but you
can't keep people from parking on the
street. Like it's a public the public
street will be parked by people that
want to park there. So, we're not going
to do that by this STR code, but we
could probably do better than what has
been happening. So, that's just just my
general thought on uh section T parking
requirements.
» Yeah. So, I I somewhat disagree with
that. Um, I know when we've looked at
special use permits before, we've put in
places for parking uh plans. And
unfortunately, this is one of those
uncontrollables. Uh, you can say, okay,
you have to have one parking spot for
every two occupants or something like
that. You can make some arbitrary thing
like that in in your code. um or some
rule like that in your code, but
every situation is going to be a little
bit different and I don't think we can
outguess that in the code. And so I
think a better way of doing it is just
give us a parking plan. What is that
plan? Uh because each house can have a
different configuration. Some will have
a threecar garage, some will have a
two-car garage. you know, they'll have
different all kinds of different
configurations and we can't second guess
that in code. That's just not going to
happen. So that's I so I think it was
appropriate to have it in here. That's
just my two cents.
» I Mr.
» I also agree with the parking plan idea.
Um, I've been I've stayed at a
short-term rental where um not only was
there a parking plan, but it was shared
with me, the renter, and and it was a
map of the property and said, "Hey,
here's where you're allowed to park.
Park in these places." Um, and that was
great. I knew exactly where I could and
could not put my car. Um, so I I think
the parking plan's a great idea. It's
helpful for guests and it'll be helpful
to all the neighbors because
guests will likely comply with that. Um,
and so the neighbors will see that
guests always park in these designated
spots that are fine to park in.
» Mr. Mayor,
» Mr. Hamburg,
» Just thinking about the bigger picture.
You can't you don't have a crystal ball,
but we have to think about your your
time and staff time and going through
all this. Do you have a sense of how
many short-term rentals are currently in
Bair and like how many uh permits you're
going to have to get through in 60 days?
» Um I'm aware of 15 currently operating.
And believe it or not, in the last
couple months, I've gotten six
additional calls from people who are
wanting to buy properties and turn them
in STRs. And I keep telling them we're
writing regulations that if they I had a
call person call me yesterday said
there's a house uh and we're thinking
about buying it. We want to know what
the possibility is. And I was just
honest. We're not looking at banning
them. However, they will have
restrictions. Um, and so you proceed at
your own
your own risk at this point, but because
in lie of that, you have to have a you
have to have a special use permit right
now. So I I don't know that I think they
were going to buy it and sit on it until
we decided what we were going to do and
meet the requirements because I did
share with them that there's likely that
we'll have density requirements in
neighborhoods. Is that do you think that
it's um just the market and they're
thinking about buying it or is there a
scramble in here to try to become an
established STR and get grandfathered
in?
» Probably more like they're just they
were thinking about buying it up here
and we're curious. Gotcha.
» Or as maybe an existing STR
» That I don't know about. Correct.
» Yep. That's probably true. The only way
to publicly know is to get on to the
public sites that advertise. Anything
short of that, they could be operating
by word of mouth, by other means. So,
there could be more. I have no idea, but
we have at least 15 now and wanting to
grow.
» Okay. So, any other discussions
regarding section T as in the top?
» One other thought I'll make, and I do
agree. I like the idea of um the guests
knowing about the parking requirements,
whether it's an official parking plan. I
don't tend to like that idea. I think
I'd like it to somehow be communicated
to them through the good neighbor policy
that's required instead of having a
specific parking plan. Just have this is
how many spots they have to all be off
street like and be very strict with that
so that there isn't
a ton of issues with the neighbors being
inconvenienced. Uh because that does
tend to happen. It that even honestly
that even happens just in a regular
house, not a short-term rental. People
will try to be more convenient for them
even if it makes it more inconvenient
for somebody else. They'll park in a
spot that just makes it harder. So, but
again, on a legal street, legal parked,
can't really do much about it. I don't
even know if a parking plan would fix
that because anybody that comes that
house could legally park on a street
legally around it. Um I don't know that
that solves our problem just having a
parking plan. But I do understand, you
know, how maybe making it clearer to the
host and the the guests where the
parking is
available.
Be good.
All right. Any other comments on section
T?
And if not, are there other sections
that you had outlined, Mr. Dean, that
you wanted to talk about? So, I had one
other section that I could just
wholesale get rid of in my opinion. I
don't know who who will agree with me or
not, but uh you unique structures. I
kind of read through this and yeah, it
sounds really nice and I'm sure there's
lots of parts of the country, you know,
like in Colorado up in the mountains and
all these other places where it might
make sense, but this strikes me as a
section that's not needed. and if we had
a person that was interested in doing
something very unique, um, you know,
they could come to us and we could
consider it and maybe we could consider
amending our policy. It doesn't feel
like this is going to play a lot into
our STR regulations, at least at this
point. So, I'd be good with just
removing it um, in its entirety. U,
unique structures is the section page
16.
Anyone else have any comments about
section U unique structures?
» Is there a way we can just make it a
special permit within the STR?
» It would be by its very nature an a
special use no matter what if we didn't
include it as a consideration in the
STRS.
But we had we had, you know, we had lots
of discussion about this coming up
because in another city they used a
covered wagon on their property,
» Right?
» And they we've had others where they've
brought an airstream in because it fits
on the property. And so that was why it
got included. Um I don't I can't
predict, but as we've said before,
people are very creative and if they
want to earn an income related to an
STR, this might be a way to do that. So,
um, but if they came to me with even
without a a regulations, the short-term
rental regulations written, it would be
a special use permit uh case that would
go through the normal process.
» Okay.
» Then then if I'm understanding that
correct, I think I agree with Council
Member Dean. We can just deal with it
that way and not enumerate it here, I
guess.
» Okay.
That would be would that then become a
reference to the part of the code?
» It wouldn't be included in the
short-term rentals. They would have to
come to the city in general and say,
"Hey, I want to put an airirstream on my
property and turn it into an STR." And I
would say, "You need to file a special
use case and it would follow proper
channels."
» Okay. Very good. All right.
» Mr. Dean, did you have any other
sections you wanted to discuss?
So, I'm trying to kind of consolidate
them into the maybe the ones that um are
bigger chunks. There are there is a
little bit of word smithing. I'm not
going to get into that. Uh the other
thing I noticed,
sorry, I was trying to mark that off. Um
under the limited home rental exemption,
um that's item G, page six. I read
through that and I remember having this
discussion and I I actually originally
was like, "No, I don't really want that
exception or whatever." But as I read
through it and as I thought about it and
did some research and also as folks
reached out to me about some of their um
interests in our what we're doing here
uh to learn more about it. Um, it feels
to me like some folks, you know,
obviously as they're retired on fixed in
income, may travel more, uh, may not
want to set up a full-fledged short-term
rental for operation all the time, but
may take a long vacation for a month or
may winter in Phoenix and maybe, you
know, a dozen weekends of the year their
homes available. And as I thought
through that, I looked at 14 calendar
days and like that doesn't really seem
to me like a great way to help reduce
the impact of their property rights and
balance it with the others. Just in the
kind of
um kind of thinking in that line of uh
thinking, I was thinking, you know,
maybe we should have this exemption. So,
I'm actually um thinking maybe 14 days
isn't enough and maybe it's something
like 30 days just to try to give people
a more of a chance to as they're retired
or fixed income to earn some additional
income while they're traveling. I know a
lot of people like doing that and I
think simplifying it for that use case
uh makes a lot of sense to me. It seemed
like you had a requirement for a simple
registration form. So, it's not like the
city wouldn't know about it if they knew
about it at least, but it wouldn't be as
um rigorous. It wouldn't require the
business license or the permitting. It
would be a little bit more streamlined
for those folks that may use it. You
know, um 30 days is kind of my
recommendation. I I think 30 days sounds
like a fair number. Um so, that was kind
of one major suggestion I had was to
keep it and to increase the days to 30
uh days per year.
» Mr. Mayor,
» Mr. D great, Mr. David.
» So, maybe I'm missing it, but whether it
was 14 days or 30 days, the problems
from the from the short-term rentals
that we're trying to address here would
still exist, no matter the intent of the
owner or the the reason they're renting
it. Correct.
» The parking and all that would still
exist. And you'd still want all those
restrictions, wouldn't you? There's
still, if you read that full section,
Greg, in its entirety, it still says to
qualify for the exemption, um, you must
follow these, um, items. Um, so they're
still required to follow all of those.
It's just a little more simple for them
to get to get going because they're not
going to be running it as a full
business. Um, so that's why I'm in
support of this exemption because they
still have to require like all those
items there. The property is is is the
owner's primary residence. um no more
than one booking at a time. All rentals
comply with noise parking occupancy
nuance nuisance regulations. The
property owner provides notice to the
city prior to the first rental. Um I'm
comfortable with the limited use nature
of a person that may leave for a month
at a time or you know for the winter um
if they have to follow those same deals
to making it a little easier for those
folks because the startup I mean most
people probably wouldn't do that. um
they wouldn't set up a STR for 14 days,
right? Um and there's a reason for that
because it would cost you cost them
money to set it up and all that, but I'm
not wanting to take away the requirement
that they still need to be a good
neighbor. They still need to follow
these requirements and if they don't,
they can still lose that, you know,
ability. Uh but I do like the idea of
allowing that to be um available for
folks that want to do. I don't know if
everybody will will do that, but it it
seems like it would make sense for some
folks um to have that opportunity to do
it. And you know, one of the questions I
had on it, Paula, though, was is how
does it fit in with um the density and
spacing and I assume all those same
things will still apply, but I I was
going to verify that. That was one of
the notes questions I had.
» This is one of the more difficult
sections. Um, and it's in here because
we had a little bit of uh conversation,
quite a bit of conversation about it. In
the first place, if somebody's gone for
the winter,
» Right?
» They're likely going to rent it to
somebody the entire winter
» Potentially.
» Potentially, it could be three, four,
five months, right?
» At that point, they are a short-term
rental. They would they would have
» Be outside a short
» If they're gone for no more than 30
days, which would be one weekend a
month. Let's just say they want to rent
out their house for one weekend a month.
They just can't do it on a public
advertising site be because the STR
allows you to do it up to, you know,
it's less than 28 days a month, but this
is 30 days a year,
» Right?
» Um it it's highly likely we would never
know if they didn't do it on one of the
public sites, right?
» They had a family member that came and
rented the house for them or whatever.
So, this is in case we
uh have somebody call in, a neighbor or
a budding property owner or somebody
saying, "Hey, they're renting that
property out." We're asking them to
register and just tell us that they're
going to utilize their property because
they already know in advance that they
are going to be gone one month every
year to Arizona to play golf. Um, but
whether they do that is a big question
mark. And how often they do that is
another big question mark. This is an
enforcable issue,
» Right?
» And we will only be able to enforce or
change it if we know about it. But it's
in there as part of a protection to say
if you're going to do this long term,
you're going to probably meet the
standards of an STR and not just I'm
leaving for five months and I'm renting
this out. Now, there's nothing that
prevents them from a long-term rental
because that's not part of this because
it's designed to be short-term rental.
But if they are going to do a short
short period of time, we put it in
there.
» Yep. No, and I agree with it. I mean, I
think that I was suggesting more days
because I I could see somebody taking a
four-week, you know, up to a four-week
vacation and maybe having it available
for that whole time for a short rental,
» Whether it's continuous or whether it's
just parts of that month that they're
gone. And I also could see people that
winter,
» Maybe their house is available and maybe
they didn't get it rented, but there
are, you know, key weekends that
» Sure
» Are able to get booked up and it's not
continuous, but it can't be over a total
of 30 days in the year. So, but I I was
kind of curious though, and I don't know
that you answered it, they still meet
all the requirements. So, say we had um
three, you know, permitted short-term
rentals. If they called up and said, I
want to do this application and you had
three short-term rentals within the
density, it I assume that that form that
application form would be denied or
would it?
» Uh that's a great question to
operationalize it. It would assume I
would assume that because of the
shortness and it because it doesn't
truly fit the definition of the
short-term rental that we would not deny
it from a density perspective,
» But we could deny it. That's a that's a
detail that probably we'll have to come
back for you to
» To weigh in on.
» Any other comments on section G,
limited home rental exemption?
hearing none. Is that all the sections
that you had comments on, Mr. Dean?
» Let's see. I think those are the major
ones.
» Okay.
» Uh the other other item I had u Paula um
and this is probably open for
discussion. And maybe people know under
um section I the separation and density
requirements
um
number two under that item two the
number of short-term rentals with a
defined block of subdivision shall not
exceed 10%. Um just curious where you
got that number and kind of how that in
your mind how that would work. So
density traditionally the two methods in
which you can control that or define it
is either a percentage of um it on a
percentage basis um or
distance. You can define a distance.
» Sure.
» So if you think 250 ft right that might
be only
three houses away. So every third house
or every fourth house in your
neighborhood could be that
» Or you can we put the language in here
is that within a defined block of a
subdivision shall not exceed. Now it
could be the subdivision. So if you
think about a subdivision here or an
addition how it's platted it could have
50 homes in that addition. So in that
addition they couldn't have any more
than five
» S strs up to five or it could be
distance. So, as a starting point, we
talked about the percentage piece.
Although percentage is a little bit more
difficult sometimes to calculate. Um, I
think the mayor pointed out that if
there's only three homes in that area
within that distance,
» It's Yeah.
» Now, I don't I don't disagree with
» It's either distance or percentage. I
don't disagree with the concept of a
percentage, but I do, you know, just
thinking through, you know, a neighbor
that may have one next to them and then
all of a sudden they've got two or
three, but they are inside the
percentage. I think that a a twoprong
approach to that makes a lot of sense to
me because it would avoid
going over a total percentage and it
would also avoid three or four being
right next to each other, right next to
a person that really doesn't really
doesn't like that. Um, and again, like
that's just kind of a concept in my mind
that I've and I don't know what the
right number is. The 200 feet seems, you
know, like you said, that's probably a
couple at least a couple homes in most
neighborhoods. Um, I don't know if
that's the right number, but I do like
the two-prong approach to it. Um, it is
kind of wild thinking about it, though.
I mean, in in our neighborhood, 140
homes could have up to 14. Uh, will we
ever see that? Probably not. But that's
a lot. That's a that's a big number. um
in the neighborhood I live in. So, I'm
just trying to visualize how many there
actually would be, what the density
would feel like and all that stuff as we
think through that. But, I like the
two-prongong approach because I think it
solves some of that
» Related to the percentage and the
separation by distance. Okay. Yep.
» And you're recommending at least to
start a 250
» Distance. I don't mind the 200 feet. I
think you put in I think item seven or
number seven item C in that same section
has
» If multiple applications are received
for locations within 200 feet than the
first application received. So that's
kind of minimizing how often they can be
I I don't know that 200 sounds fine to
me. I don't know if anybody has an
opinion, but uh I just wanted to state I
like the two-prong approach because I
could see that solving, you know, too
many of them getting right next to each
other, but still being under, you know,
a total total density cap that you're
» I think the distance is a good is a good
measure, but I don't know what the right
distance is.
» I don't know either.
» I think what I'll do the next tight
» I think what I'll do is
» Some neighborhoods that might be too
far. take your I'll just take your
neighborhood since you mentioned it and
look and see what 250 ft distance
» Because it's a typical lot size
neighborhood. Okay.
» Yeah, it's tough. I mean cuz some
depending on the lot size that could
between you it could matter.
» Yeah, your your lot covers 500 feet,
doesn't it, Tyler?
» Mine's mine. So that's the thing. Mine
personally, which I'm not I'm not really
thinking about using my home as a STR,
but it's 300 feet on the frontage and
it's like less than 200 on the back.
Yeah.
» So, I mean, obviously it depends on how
you measure it right in the individual
property pin
» Where where it would come from. If it's
the front, if it's the back, if it's the
side,
» It's the distance between you and the
neighbor next door. So, it wouldn't be
front or back. It would necessar it
might like be calculated side by side,
but
» Right.
» We'll let you come up.
» No, I'm not I'm trying to suggest how to
do that. It obviously could be measured
quite a few ways.
» Okay.
» Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Is there any other items sections
that you wanted to talk about, Tyler,
and we'll move on to other city council
members, see what they want to talk
about?
» Well, I mean, feel free to chime. I'm
trying to leave space for everybody to
chime in. So, hopefully we have some
consensus. That's what getting this done
is going to take, just going line by
line. And
um
I don't know. I guess we could talk
about it. I mean, I mentioned it was
really well written. item uh W on page
819, which is the overnight guest
occupancy and bedroom definition. I
mean, really detailed, really well
written up. It's essentially defines
what a legal bedroom is, which is the
case in every home. Um, when you certify
it for bedrooms occupancy wise, it's
suggesting two guests per bedroom plus
three additional persons. Um, so, you
know, I guess we could kind of chat if
we feel like that's the right number.
Um, you know, I said earlier just some
examples of what that would look like on
a four or fivebedroom home, but uh it
feels like that number is probably about
right, but if somebody, you know,
disagrees, then we can decide if we want
to make that a different number.
I I like the number in conjunction with
the parking spaces per bedroom. I think
that's a great um
yeah, those work well together. I think
that's a great idea.
» There is a there is on if you look at
number seven of that section, um that
information also makes it clear that
because what happens is in a lot of the
bedrooms, they'll put three sets of bunk
beds in there
» Thinking they can get six people per
room. So it's kind of on the front end,
no more than two persons per and even if
you're using futons and bunk beds and
all those kinds of things, it doesn't
increase your occupancy or capacity or
your real. So that was a little unique
language that we had not included in
there before, but probably thought it
was valuable.
» Yeah. really I liked how you did the
overnight occupancy and additional three
for the whole unit because there are a
lot of Airbnbs that do have a futon or
we just don't want it to get excessive
to the point where we've got 12 cars
showing up here, you know, kind of
thing. So, that's good. Uh I can't
remember where it was, Paula. It was
related to occupancy, but somewhere I
read a definition of because there's an
overnight guest or overnight occupancy
and then somewhere later I remember
reading something about daytime
occupancy and I'm not recalling where
that came from. Maybe it was in the
events section. I don't know.
» It was in the gathering section.
» Was it?
» I don't I I think if we get rid of the
and that's why I put that note. If we
get rid of the guest event venue, we
should try to decide here. Do we put a
daytime occupancy number maximum because
people will still have people come over
when they rent a STR, right? And they
it's up to three additional persons for
the unit as a whole to stay the night or
do we want to make any sort of addition
to what a daytime occupancy would be or
do we just leave it at this number and
adjust it just to give some more room?
That would be my only suggestion. And if
we got rid of that, how do we manage
that here?
» When our first discussion happened, I
think the initial um short-term rental
property owner came and said, "I started
this because of hoops and they have
basketball tournaments." And the person
who rents the home or the parents or
whoever goes in on it, right, could
legally based on our definition have 15
people stay overnight. But he said there
might be more that come over during the
day in between basketball games to swim,
to hang out, to order pizza. So you
might want to and we might want to look
at some language that allows for
um
additional people to be there but not
stay there, I think, is what you're
asking. I just don't have those numbers
in a language, but I can probably
present something if that's the
direction you'd like me to go.
» I think that's appropriate to do. Yeah,
I think we should do something like
that.
» I mean, it's difficult, right? Because
it does still bring up the total number
of people and the total parking
requirement because if guests come over,
just like anybody's house, whether it's
short-term rental or not, when you have
guests come over, your driveway starts
filling up, right? Or the parking on the
street for that four hours that you're
having them over
um does become a little bit of an
inconvenience for other people if you
don't handle that right. um even if
you're legally parking. So, I don't
know. There's some thought in my mind
that maybe maybe that's just too much
and maybe we should just decide on
what's the extra guest allowance and
make it more simple than having a
daytime and evening time.
» But I would say also I come from a very
large family and one holiday event meant
sometimes 40 people being at my house,
right? I don't have 40 parking spaces on
my driveway and they were parked along
the street during the daytime hours, but
they weren't spending the night. So, I
think that there is probably a
differentiation about
» Yes, they can park, but can we allow
them? And we do we want somebody calling
and saying, "Hey, they're having a big
party over here." Well, they can. They
just can't have 45 people stay in the
night, right? In sleeping bags all over
the floor. So, let me just see if I can
find some draft language that might help
answer that question and see then if
it's necessary because it's not in here
now. Yeah.
» Okay.
» No, I agree. I think that would be good.
I mean, if we don't have events at
parties, which we don't want, we do have
to have some some sort of way of
handling that here on a total persons at
the house at one time. I think that
makes a lot of sense. It just I don't
know what the number should be. Well,
and and you can also say I mean in the
gathering and events section, even
though um we don't want that section,
there is some language that can help
prompt this conversation, right? Option
one alone says gatherings of persons
shall not exceed two times the maximum
overnight occupancy or 25 guests.
» Gotcha.
» During the day, it may not exceed three
times the maximum maximum occupancy,
which allows 35 people in a home, right?
And then they have to go home and they
can't sleep there. So there might be
some language that might help satisfy
that because that would be considered a
gathering.
» Yeah.
» I mean 45 people is a lot of people.
That's
» We'll look forward to your
recommendations which find
» We'll work on some language.
» I think that was the main things I had.
I have other notes and I can send those
to Paul that are more wordsmith stuff
and stuff like those are the bigger ones
that I saw.
» Thank you.
» Yep. Um,
my only big comment, I've got 28
questions or things here, but the only
big thing in here is I saw a significant
inconsistency from getting the permit
and the appeal process, but you've
already discussed that. You already
recognize that issue. So, I'm just want
to re-emphasize, be careful about that
because if we have to give notice to
people, that's a $500 check right there
minimum to go do that research to get
the title companies to tell us who those
people are we have to give notice to and
all that stuff. And as you know, it's a
it's a it can be an involved process.
So, um
I don't want us to try to push that
issue. I'd like to avoid that if we can.
I don't know what the right way to get
around it is, but I would like to avoid
that if we can because it's just doesn't
it seems overly burdensome to me to to
require that. So, um, but other members,
council members have any other things
they want to bring up, burning issues to
them,
» Mr. Mayor,
» Mr. Macintosh,
» I had just just one more uh in section S
about pets.
Um, if I scroll back to it,
» You said S
» S as in Sam.
» Yes.
» Uh, the pets section.
» Yes.
» A lot of this seemed to be a
regurgitation of ordinances we already
have in place concerning pets.
» Yes.
» Should we just reference our existing
pet ordinance? Um, as I said at the top
of the almost hour, yes, there these
were mentioned. I put them in here, but
understand that we do probably have some
other regulations that might govern
that. A lot of our animal control uh
type of issues are managed by Cedric
County by contract. So, I need to look
and see what we have, what we don't
have, what they're enforcing, what
they're not, and see if it makes sense.
And it could be that some of these just
are part of the good neighbor policies
that says follow the codes but
understand that you need to have your
pet on a leash or whatever because it's
going to be hard for them to a person
renting. I wouldn't I may now now that
I'm a community development director I
may rent my next house and go look at
all their zoning codes make sure I'm in
compliance but uh they most likely they
wouldn't know. So unless we're kind of
giving them some guidance. Yes. So, uh,
you're right. There there might be some
other governing that might correct all
this or or take this into account.
» Okay. Yeah. And I like that suggestion.
Maybe put a couple bullet points in the
good neighbor guidelines that are to be
posted to the guest.
» Sure.
» Um, yeah. Just to kind of condense this
a little bit.
» Absolutely.
» Miss Hamburg, did you have something?
» I just had a couple of quick items. Just
big picture thing. you're seeing this as
complaint driven. Like you're not going
to stare at Airbnb sites and be like,
"Oh, I noticed that they they've had
this up for 6 months instead of three
months."
» Yeah. You just your time doesn't even
allow that.
» No.
» The big picture ideas here is to kind of
have a a stick if you've got a repeat
offender that's causing problems. So, um
just along those lines of maybe getting
too detailed, but still leaving our
ability to deal with problems.
» Sure. uh section P, you know, where it
says uh
» Trash collection.
» Number two,
» You you might require that they they
show that they have trash service. Well,
the big deal is is you don't want trash
piling up and you don't want them using
the neighbor's trash can. Correct.
» So, that seems like overkill, but it
might be a way to deal with them if it
becomes an issue and to have a path to
deal with them. Correct.
» Correct.
» Yeah. and or it might be that it might
fit in another
» Section. I just we just talked about
making because we had a complaint that
said they were putting trash and they
hadn't picked up their trash in days and
a week after somebody left and they were
just piling it on the ground. And so we
were just trying to consider what all
needs to be in there. And like I said,
these sections will be modified if
there's places in the code that are
accurately reflecting what we want. If
they aren't, then we're gonna put them
in here.
» Yeah.
» Correct.
» Okay. And then same goes for like uh
section Q with the lighting about the
porch being on overnight. Like I think,
you know, you can pull something like
that out, but again, you kind of need to
write a number of things because you
can't predict every situation that's
going to bug your neighbor and actually
be a long-term problem. So,
» I think that we're we're going to modify
that lighting section in the sense that
we have a lot of people who we don't
want them to put the big lights up in
the backyard so they can swim all hours
of the night, right? or light pollution
and we just want to make sure that we're
mindful of that. We have a whole
lighting uh section. We just want to
make sure that we're considering what
might happen in STR which is now
currently not in considered in our
existing codes.
» Okay. Thank you.
» Mr. Mayor, just a clarification. Do you
think quiet hours will solve a lot of
the issues that you kind of just
described?
» Oh my goodness, that's a tough question.
Um, we I mean right now neighbors have
the right to call the police if there's
some concern about noise at certain
hours, right? So, I think it is a good
neighbor policy for sure and a reminder
that says, "Please post this because we
don't want the STR renters assuming that
they can go all night if they want to."
Um, they don't know what they don't
know. And so if we can request them to
create some written posted whatever
policy to let them know, then when
somebody shows up at the door and says,
um, it's 2 o'clock in the morning,
you're supposed to shut this down,
right? Then they know they they should
have known some way. So some of these
will fit nicely into the good neighbor
requirement posting. I'd like to say
that people don't know what they don't
know, but if they do know it, they
better follow it and then we have a
little bit better opportunity to talk to
the property owner after the fact.
» Yeah. No, that makes sense.
» Mr. Mayor, I did have one more item I
found since unless anybody else has
something to bring up. Um I did look at
the AA section for appeals of short-term
rental decisions. Um page 27 is where it
started. Um, and just kind of reading
through it looks like, so for instance,
uh, B under administrative appeal, the
appeal shall include, and there's a
laundry list there, but it looks to me
like you're following the zoning, the
200 feet of the area proposed and the
10,00 requirement is just straight out
of what we have to do on zoning cases,
which is great. I think that's perfect.
Uh, the next page, item
D for protest petition. This one got me
going, got me just thinking a little bit
of how how this is going to turn from an
administrative process into a planning
process very quickly if we don't decide
on this. And what I mean by that is the
protest petition um percentage at 20%.
So if if there was 10 neighbors near
your uh STR, two only two would have to
say, "Nope, just don't want an STR next
to me. Nope, just don't want it. I don't
care what property rights they want." I
have a problem with 20%. Seems way too
low. I know where it comes from. I read
the it's from the can the c the Kansas
state statute where if you're have a
zoning uh protest petition process, it
it requires a supermajority vote of the
governing body. I think that's where
that's pulled from. In this case, I
think the protest petition should be
much higher because what you're asking
is, hey neighborhood, do you really have
a problem with this? And to me, 20% is
not the neighborhood having a problem
with this. 40 or 50% is and at this
point you're not denying anything.
You're just requiring another step which
is then what I what I read is the
planning commission turns into the
appeals the final say in the matters.
Right. So they go through a typical
zoning process with the um planning
commission. Correct.
» Well that at at the top of the hour um I
said I also said that this is a little
bit messier. We're gonna have to
uncouple some things. So, let me just be
fair and say
um the application would come to me and
if they meet all the requirements, I
approve it. If for some reason I deny
it, we allow the applicant to file the
appeal. Right? So, the appeal we're
trying to mimic and see what that flow
will be and we will lo we will probably
pretty closely follow the process for
any appeal that we would have. Okay. The
other problem that we have is and we had
a lot of discussion and this is the
other messy piece of it is that when I
receive an application to review it
» Right
» For approval or denial and they do meet
all the expectations
there's no mechanism that allows or
provides for the uh neighbors to know
that this is even going to happen. So I
have a two-prong problem. What am I
going to do when I get the application
to notify neighbors if I need to? And
what is that burden on them to submit a
petition or protest, whatever it is, or
notification? And if I do get uh
complaints about an STR going in next
door to the property owners, what do I
do with it? Is that a condition to deny?
Right? So, that's one area. If I deny it
and the applicant doesn't agree with
that, then I my intent is to follow the
appropriate appeal process. Now the
question really becomes does it start
and stop with the planning commission or
does it follow the normal process of any
other which would be planning commission
makes recommendation to city council,
city council reviews it. Right? So those
are the nuances that we're still trying
to work out. So, um
um with that being said, I think we'll
have a clearer, that's a technical word,
picture of how this process will work as
we give it some additional thought,
right? Because when this whole thing
started, your your question was is that
I was going to hold the public hearing
and I can't do that. And the only way
that I could is if the applicant for the
STR provides me and pays for the
ownership list. I notify like we
normally do, right?
» And then there's a waiting period of the
20 days so that people know what's
happening. But then where are they going
to go?
» I I'm not going to be the administrative
hearing officer deciding whether this
goes through or not. Right? So those are
the difficulties um that we have to sort
of figure out how to
» Put the appropriate process with the
appropriate intent. My thing is is that
if they approve if they meet all the
requirements that you all have set out
then I'm going to approve it. If they
don't then what? And then we're going to
be hearing from neighbors who said
nobody ever told us that that
application was filed and that you
approved it. Well our code doesn't
require that. So there's a lot of work
to be done in that area.
U we just put the placeholders in there
because we'd had quite a discussion
about it previously.
» Yeah, I I agree with your earlier
comment that there needs to be some work
on that.
» Oh, a lot of work. Let's
» Pull out.
» Let's give you a chance to do that and
and then absolutely can consider what
what it is. So, I I appreciate that you
have some comments, but I think that
it's going to drastically change in this
area as we start trying to figure out um
how best to put this through if somebody
has a issue or complaint or appeal.
» Okay,
gotcha. Yep. Nope, that makes sense. And
I think it'd be helpful to do some more
research, see what other jurisdictions
do as far as notifications if if they're
legally required or not. Some probably
choose to to post notice somehow or some
way even if they aren't going to have a
public hearing. So, nope. That's the
only other major one I I missed.
» Mr. Proctor, did you have any sections
you wanted to discuss?
» I think the sections I I was maybe a
little concerned about. We've talked
about and then um I think you me
mentioned the discrepancy between like
the two years and one year, but I kind
of figured that'd get worked out before
this is all done anyways.
» Okay, good. Thank you, Mr. David. Did
you have any other sections you want to
talk about?
» No addition. Just the the general
consensus that less is more. So, if we
can condense it and
» Get rid of things, reference things that
that don't need to be repeated, that all
be
» Improvement. Thanks,
» Miss Hamburg. Are you satisfied with
anything? Okay.
» Okay. So, I guess we've uh pretty much
covered everything and appreciate all
the input.
» Rage, can I make two comments that'll be
short? I know, I know, but I I just have
to get this from this conversation. So,
as you can tell, we're going to spend
the next three workshops talking about
codes. And we have this that's
related that Paula talked about. We also
have a Senate bill out there that we're
going to talk about in conjunction. Mhm.
» So, kind of the the broad plan of staff
is to make all three of these crescendo
» Into one.
There'll be different votes, but as far
as timing goes, and I I know we were
looking at fall of this year, and we
will continue to push, we're dedicating
all of our workshops to the end of the
year to zoning matters. Um, so I just
want to be clear that um, we're we're
going to work on this as much as we can,
but it might be tied to some of the
zoning codes that we're going to discuss
over the next three workshops. So, I
just want to be clear on that. The other
hard part, um, and you know, the
planning commission makes the
recommendation and and the council
approves this matter. Um,
a lot of times we talk have these
conversations about big policy and it
doesn't involve the planning commission.
I was at the planning commission meeting
and we presented this and I think a lot
of them said, "Hey, can we get it in
word version and make our markups and
send it to Paula?" Essentially, what
that does to my staff is sends almost 12
different versions of the same document
to one person. And I understand
um she she can she can navigate those
waters, but it might be good to think as
we move to our next workshop of what
what recommendation you would like from
the planning commission. Do you want
them to completely dive themselves into
this and and and get word by word what
they want? I I just feel like we owe it
to the planning commission of, you know,
h how deep do you want them to go in
this process? because we're going to go
really deep this group and if they go
really deep it's going to be even
tougher on Paula. So I I don't know if
I've properly asked this question but I
would like some guidance to give to our
» I think I understand your question about
what my question is what process do you
think would work best for you
» Because you're going to get input from
seven planning commission people and
from six governing body people. That's a
big team.
» It's a huge team. So, up to this point,
we've workshopped only with you. I
introduced it because we know that any
change to the zoning regulations has to
go through the planning commission. Um,
I like receiving feedback on a very big
umbrella. I do not want to spend
workshop time of anybody's time
completely word by word going through
this document and word.
» Thank you. Because I don't either. Um,
so I'd like I I mean the in all honesty,
he didn't say this either, but the
planning commission requested to have a
workshop space on their own meetings
with PEC to talk about all these things
so they can tell
um um
staff PEC what to include in this these
codes.
» Okay. So, we said, "No, we're going to
have joint commission and council
because um what did we say?" Right? The
odds are you have to have three votes.
And so, the thing is is if you're
rewriting everything and it has nothing
to do with where the council's direction
is, who the ultimate governing body for
approval, um I'm just spinning my
wheels, right? So, we're not going to
have any separate, but be prepared that
from a from the zoning code perspective,
they're going to come to these workshops
with a whole laundry list of things they
think should be included. Um, from the
STR, they want to look at the document
and provide guidance. I'm willing to
take big picture guidance, but not
rewriting. I'm also not necessarily
willing to have additional workshops
just with them. I'd rather bring the
suggestions back to you all to see what
fits and what doesn't. Um, and then
ultimately when the document is defined,
then we can bring it back through
planning commission for approval based
on your recommendations and then move to
you. So, it's really messy right now.
Um, and I we'll give some more thought
to it about what we're going to do, but
um I just wanted you all to be prepared
that at most of the the uh zoning code
update workshops, they have a lot of
ideas about what they want to see in the
codes.
I'm not enamored with the idea of giving
them the word document and having them
come back with the changes because I
could just see that as a huge
» Pro.
» It will and it hasn't they requested it
hasn't been provided. I let them know
that we were going to be talking to
council tonight.
» I mean and and council members please
speak up if you have any input on that.
But I just I can just see that just
being a a horrible burden on her if we
did that.
» Mr. Mayor,
» Mr. McDuck. Uh um I I agree with the
general sentiment that yeah, if somebody
gets in there and words smmiths this
preliminary document, it it just get
ginormous.
something that works well in the the
business that I'm in. Um, we use
Microsoft 365,
you can share a review only copy of a
document
to allow individuals if they want to
spend six hours on a document
reviewing and making comments, but you
can't actually change the content of the
document. You can make suggestions that
are really easy to implement if they're
good suggestions.
Um, and they're super quick to review.
Um, I think some of the input we might
get from individuals who want to go
through and spend a lot of time on this
could be very valuable
» And we should provide them the
opportunity to provide that value.
Um, maybe the right approach is a review
only version
of a shared document. Everybody's in the
same document at the same time. leaving
comments in the same document.
Um, if that if you think that would be a
good idea, that'd be my suggestion. Um,
but I'll go back to the mayor's comment.
Whatever is going to be easiest for you,
Paula, I think is the right approach
because ultimately
» And I want to make sure that you if we
one thing we talked about related to the
shared document was are we violating the
the open meetings by them getting into
the document and exchanging stuff all
the time because they're going to be
able to see each other's comments. They
may be able to put comments in there
that says, "Hey, I don't like that, but
let's do that." So, I did not agree to
that at the time because it was
suggested and I was concerned about the
open meetings and the serial meetings.
So, I'm not inclined to do that.
However, I'm not opposed to them
submitting comments and suggestions
individually to me, but I want a
mechanism to bring back to you to say,
do we want to spend time on that?
Because they may say, well, they can
have up to 70 days a year if they're not
going to rent it. Or they may be able to
have, why can't they have 20 people in
there? Maybe they want five people
maximum, right? So, they're gonna
they're gonna have some really um
» Good comments, and they might have some
comments that you don't agree with, and
I don't want to spend time developing
full-blown language, but I want you to
have the
» The comments and the feedback somehow so
you can provide direction about whether
we should go down a certain path or make
changes. I think I think a certain
amount of that is you between you and
and Ted and Maria need to call the balls
and strikes on what are you going to
present to council of those re of those
suggestions because because like some of
my suggestions are just little editorial
stuff. It's not does I don't have to
update all
» I expect everybody to to even discuss
that stuff. It's like okay so what you
and I don't want you coming back to the
council and say well should we change
this from the to a
» Sense this discussion helps Paul and I
call those balls and strikes is really
difficult when we don't have this
discussion and then absolutely
» So so I appreciate the short discussion
on this particular topic and I'm I think
I I know what the council wants.
» Thank you.
» Okay.
Okay. Any other final statements on this
short-term rental thing or we ready to
move on?
» It wasn't so short.
» Sorry, dad joke.
» It was almost a exactly an hour.
» Yep.
» Check that.
» Check that out.
» What I said.
Okay. If there are none, we can move to
adjournment.
» Mr. Mayor,
» Mr. Dean,
» I move we adjourn.
» Second.
» Sec. Motion by Mr. Dean, a second by Mr.
David. All in favor say I.
» I.
» Any opposed?
That motion carries 5 to zero. We are
adjourned. See everybody in two weeks.
» September 1st.
» I also didn't go everyone. I was really