[4:57] here.
[4:58] » Emily Hamburg
[4:59] » Here.
[5:00] » Brandon Macintosh
[5:02] » Present.
[5:03] » And Mike Proctctor
[5:05] » Present.
[5:06] » And you have a quorum. Mayor.
[5:08] » Thank you. This evening we have Father
[5:10] Terry Hedrickk from Church of the
[5:12] Resurrection on 37th Street to lead us
[5:14] in prayer. Father is pinch hitting. I
[5:17] had to beg him to come help us. So he he
[5:20] agreed to come help us out today. So
[5:22] thank you.
[5:23] » Yes. Well, let's pray together
[5:26] again. Our God, we gather in the name of
[5:28] your son Jesus, giving you thanks that
[5:31] you're present here now by your Holy
[5:33] Spirit. And as we gather, Lord, we give
[5:35] thanks that you are a good and gracious
[5:37] God, abounding in mercy and steadfast
[5:39] love.
[5:40] And so Lord, we pray specifically
[5:42] tonight for the city of Bair again for
[5:45] the city council, especially for Jim
[5:47] Bage, the mayor, also the leaders of the
[5:50] community, but especially for our law
[5:52] enforcement, firefighters, EMS, and all
[5:56] of our first responders. So tonight,
[5:59] lead and guide their decisions. We pray
[6:03] that you will reveal to them the
[6:05] knowledge of your will and all wisdom
[6:06] and spiritual understanding in order
[6:08] that they may be fruitful in your
[6:09] service. Anoint them with your Holy
[6:12] Spirit, a spirit of wisdom, charity, and
[6:14] justice that with steadfast purpose for
[6:17] the common good, they may faithfully
[6:19] serve in their offices to promote the
[6:22] well-being of all people in the Belair
[6:25] community.
[6:27] Grant that they may love mercy, do
[6:29] justice, and walk humbly with you.
[6:32] We ask all of this in the strong and
[6:34] wonderful name of our savior Jesus who
[6:36] lives and reigns with you and the Holy
[6:38] Spirit, one God, both now and forever.
[6:40] Amen.
[6:42] » Amen. Thank you. Please join me in the
[6:44] pledge of allegiance to the American
[6:46] flag
[6:51] to the flag of the United States of
[6:53] America and to the republic for which it
[6:56] stands. One nation under God,
[6:59] indivisible, with liberty and justice
[7:02] for all.
[7:07] » Next item is to determine agenda
[7:09] additions. Do we have anything to add to
[7:11] the agenda?
[7:13] » Mr. Mayor,
[7:14] » Mr. Macintosh,
[7:15] » I I do have an agenda addition. I'd like
[7:18] to add a discussion about Woodlon
[7:21] detour.
[7:22] » Woodlon detour. Okay. Um, let's put that
[7:26] as item
[7:28] 13D.
[7:30] Okay.
[7:31] » Thank you.
[7:38] » Sure. All right. We will we will
[7:40] consider that. All right. Very good. Any
[7:43] other additions to the agenda?
[7:47] There are none. We'll move on to uh the
[7:49] consent agenda. So, it's a nice consent
[7:51] agenda. includes minutes from the
[7:53] previous regular city council meeting
[7:55] and change order number five for the
[7:57] 2026 street maintenance program.
[8:01] » Mr. Mayor,
[8:02] » Mr. David,
[8:03] » A motion to approve the consent agenda
[8:05] as listed and authorize the mayor to
[8:07] sign.
[8:08] » Second.
[8:09] » Motion by Mr. David, a second by Mr.
[8:11] Dean. Any questions or discussion?
[8:15] Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. All
[8:16] in favor say I. I.
[8:18] » I.
[8:19] » Any opposed? Motion carries five to
[8:21] zero.
[8:23] Next item is uh appropriation ordinance.
[8:26] So this encompasses expenses from the
[8:28] July 29th through August 11th uh
[8:31] expenses amount to 673,22.
[8:37] Uh and of those expenses $245,816
[8:41] are for infrastructure cost for new
[8:44] developments and those costs are paid
[8:46] through special assessments.
[8:49] » Mr. Mayor
[8:50] » Miss Hamburg.
[8:51] » I'm going to make a motion to approve
[8:52] appropriations ordinance number 26-15.
[8:56] » Second motion by Miss Hamburg, a second
[8:58] by Mr. Macintosh. All in favor say I.
[9:02] » I.
[9:02] » I.
[9:03] » I.
[9:03] » Any oppose? Motion carries. Five to
[9:06] zero. Sorry, I didn't give anybody a
[9:08] chance to ask any questions, so should
[9:10] have. All right. Next item is uh
[9:13] citizens concerns. Oh, no. I'm sorry. We
[9:16] have city requested appearances. So, uh,
[9:19] PEC traffic engineer Tim
[9:21] » Azir, am I saying your name right? Azir
[9:24] » Aer.
[9:26] Okay, thank you. Uh, he's here tonight
[9:28] to discuss his analysis of the
[9:30] intersection at 53rd and Oliver and 53rd
[9:33] and Web. So, Mr.
[9:40] Thank you, Mayor and Council. Uh, staff
[9:43] asked us to take a look at those two
[9:45] intersections specifically. We conducted
[9:48] a traffic count and ran stop sign
[9:50] warrants to see whether a stop sign was
[9:54] warded in in all four directions. Um,
[9:57] and I think the memo that we provided is
[9:59] should be part of your packet if I'm not
[10:01] mistaken.
[10:03] From memory, we met the crash warrant
[10:06] for both intersections and we were very
[10:08] close to meeting the eight hour warrant.
[10:11] Basically being over a specific count
[10:13] for eight hours of the day. You Each
[10:17] intersection met seven clearly and my
[10:21] recollection is the last hour was close
[10:23] and one of them was close enough that if
[10:25] we would have counted it a different day
[10:28] during that week, it may have actually
[10:29] met. So, we're recommending that both
[10:31] those intersections be converted to a
[10:33] four-way stop. One of those has already
[10:35] been done. We wanted to get that done
[10:37] before school started session and get
[10:40] all of that in place so that it was not
[10:43] something we were trying to do in the
[10:44] first few weeks of school. uh that's
[10:46] been accomplished and that's out there.
[10:48] I'm sure you've seen it. The next one,
[10:50] um our recommendation would be to do it
[10:53] as soon as the signage comes down for
[10:56] the previous intersection. Um not I
[10:59] wouldn't recommend doing both of them at
[11:00] the same time, but doing them staggering
[11:03] in order so that that new change is
[11:08] still familiar in everyone's minds. It's
[11:11] not a requirement. It's just a
[11:13] recommendation if you for whatever
[11:14] reason want to push it off a few months
[11:16] or however long. My only concern there
[11:19] is we know that it meets because of
[11:20] crash. So the longer you wait is the the
[11:24] more danger that that will happen again.
[11:26] Um with that I'll stand for any
[11:28] questions that you may have.
[11:31] » Any any have want questions for Mr.
[11:34] » Mr. Mayor?
[11:35] » Mr. Dean
[11:36] » I did have one question. So, the the two
[11:38] specific ones you're speaking about
[11:39] tonight that the memo relates to is 53rd
[11:41] in Oliver and 53rd and Web.
[11:43] » Yeah.
[11:43] » Um 53rd and Oliver is pretty clear to me
[11:47] because it's very similar to the one we
[11:48] just converted at Woodlon and 53rd. 53rd
[11:51] and Web is a completely different
[11:52] situation because of the fact that it's
[11:54] a four-way or a four-lane highway or
[11:57] four-lane main road with a two-lane
[12:01] crossing. It was that a fact. Can you
[12:04] explain how that may have played a
[12:05] factor in how you analyzed it a little
[12:06] bit?
[12:07] » That doesn't play as much of a factor in
[12:09] in meeting the simple warrants. Uh it it
[12:12] it's a more complex situation, I'll
[12:14] grant you, but the warrants themselves
[12:16] are based on volume. So,
[12:19] » It's something that we can discuss more
[12:21] and and
[12:23] work on how that solution should be
[12:26] implemented if that's a concern that
[12:27] council has. Uh the other one is pretty
[12:30] straightforward and could probably be
[12:31] done whenever. Um, but you're right,
[12:34] that's it's a different situation
[12:36] because it's additional lanes.
[12:38] » Yeah. I mean, one of the things that
[12:40] comes to mind is a lot of times when you
[12:41] see, and I'm not saying we shouldn't do
[12:42] it. I'm just saying it's obviously a
[12:44] different situation than the last few.
[12:47] Um, usually you see a divided portion of
[12:49] the road with some sort of a median or
[12:51] something so that there's a there's a
[12:53] stop sign in the middle as well as on
[12:55] the sides so that somebody can't just
[12:58] blow through it or there is at least a
[13:01] blinking light or something overhead so
[13:03] that it catches
[13:04] » I think not to cut you off but one of
[13:06] the things that we've been doing is
[13:07] adding the LED border to all the new
[13:09] stop signs. So, I think that's something
[13:11] that we would recommend also,
[13:12] » Right?
[13:12] » And that'll help. And we'll have
[13:14] advanced warning signs coming up to the
[13:16] intersection in every direction just
[13:17] like the one we put in that says that
[13:21] there's a stop sign ahead. A stop bar
[13:23] also will go all the way across both
[13:25] lanes.
[13:26] » So, there's other indications, but
[13:27] you're right. It's it's an additional
[13:29] lane that it's not right there next to
[13:30] you.
[13:31] » Right. That design just looks and feels
[13:33] a lot different to me. So, I just wasn't
[13:35] sure if I know you're recommending it.
[13:38] it meets the warrants, but how much
[13:40] additional leg work are you seeing in a
[13:43] design of converting that?
[13:45] » There's there's not really room, if I'm
[13:48] not mistaken, to put in a median or
[13:50] anything. And it's a median is not
[13:54] required in that situation. I I think
[13:56] the other thing to probably think about
[13:58] is
[14:00] is there some sort of and we didn't we
[14:02] weren't asked to look at this, so we
[14:04] haven't looked at it. Is there a need
[14:05] for a left turn lane in each direction?
[14:07] So that that that inside lane turns into
[14:10] a left turn lane, which
[14:12] » Right
[14:12] » I don't like doing because if you're in
[14:14] that lane, your your lane just turns for
[14:16] you and you have to know when to get out
[14:18] of that lane. But it is a possibility if
[14:21] it meets warrants and we have the
[14:23] geometry to do so. Another part of that
[14:26] equation is what the through volume is
[14:28] and whether you really need four lanes
[14:30] or not or if you can get by with one
[14:32] through lane in each direction north and
[14:34] south.
[14:37] » My one concern and I know that um it's
[14:40] not unheard of to have a stop sign at a
[14:42] 55 mph zone a speed limit, but that road
[14:45] is a 55 mph speed limit on at 53rd and
[14:48] web. The web is 55. And I just wonder if
[14:51] maybe we would be wiser to also consider
[14:55] reducing that speed limit. I don't know
[14:57] what that should be, but
[14:58] » I would I would recommend that. Yes.
[15:01] » And it's part of a it's not all that
[15:04] complex, but a speed study or speed
[15:06] consideration for that to take it down
[15:08] to 45 in either direction coming up to
[15:12] that intersection, I think, is
[15:13] definitely something that would be
[15:15] advantageous.
[15:16] » Okay.
[15:20] Okay,
[15:20] » Mr. Aser,
[15:22] did have you ever experienced with a
[15:25] four-lane uh stop sign like this where
[15:30] things got worse because a stop sign was
[15:33] installed? Has that ever been the case?
[15:36] » Not not that we just installed. I think
[15:39] there are a few locations where an
[15:42] existing stop sign could have been a
[15:44] problem. But again, it it often comes
[15:47] down to volume and speed, both of which
[15:52] speed we can control. Volume we can't
[15:54] necessarily, but I don't remember the
[15:56] volumes being so high that like we were
[15:59] talking even the four laid may not be
[16:02] required. I don't know the numbers off
[16:03] the top of my head without looking at
[16:05] them, but
[16:07] generally that's a a much higher volume
[16:10] and I without knowing what they are, I
[16:14] would be surprised if they were enough
[16:16] to warrant that for most of the day. So,
[16:19] we could put in less. The the the
[16:22] problem with those less in that
[16:24] configuration is typically you'd want
[16:27] those to line up so you don't have a
[16:29] possibility for a conflict of turning
[16:31] vehicles opposing each other and it's
[16:33] clearer to see if you separate them and
[16:37] set send them across the intersection.
[16:38] Not only is there the opportunity that
[16:40] they could hit each other, but also that
[16:42] car now blocks through traffic in the
[16:44] other direction, which shouldn't be a
[16:46] problem at a four-way stop, but it's
[16:48] always something and you can't
[16:52] completely eliminate the the conflict or
[16:54] the the opportunity for the crash. So,
[16:58] all those are considerations that should
[17:00] be taken into account if we're going to
[17:02] talk about changing the geometry or the
[17:03] configuration in any way, but it's all
[17:06] something we can look at for you if
[17:08] that's something that you think is
[17:09] warranted.
[17:11] » Thank you,
[17:15] » Mr. Parker.
[17:16] » Mr. Mayor, uh Mr. Asure.
[17:21] » Okay. Uh, do we need to do a
[17:25] uh traffic study to or I guess is this a
[17:27] traffic study that would you could also
[17:29] make that recommendation to drop the
[17:31] speed down 45 or do we need to do more
[17:33] for that?
[17:33] » Uh, we could make a recommendation to
[17:36] staff to do that. Um, I need to look at
[17:38] it and have conversation with some of my
[17:41] guys to make sure that the information
[17:44] that I'm conjuring in my head right now
[17:46] is accurate. But yes, it's could be
[17:49] pretty straightforward.
[17:52] Good. Uh, and of course we're not voting
[17:56] on it, but but it sounds like we'd like
[17:59] some more uh information on 53rd and
[18:02] web.
[18:02] » Yeah.
[18:03] » Um, and I think 53rd and Oliver, we need
[18:07] to just go do it, right? Okay. Uh, I
[18:10] think that's within your authority to to
[18:13] authorize that. Is that correct?
[18:15] » Yes.
[18:16] I think I'd like a motion, I think, from
[18:18] the council just to make sure when the
[18:21] time comes. Um, that would probably be
[18:23] more clean for me. Uh, just with a few
[18:26] traffic four-way stops, it helps uh even
[18:29] with PR uh that the council made this
[18:32] decision.
[18:32] » Okay. Well, we we could do that now if
[18:34] if somebody wants to make that motion.
[18:36] Mr. Proctor. Wow.
[18:40] » Mr. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion
[18:42] that we um
[18:45] put a four-way stop at 53rd and Oliver.
[18:49] Uh also 53rd and Web and upon the
[18:55] recommendation of the engineering firm
[18:58] uh
[18:59] with their direction recommendation
[19:01] reduce the speed down to 45 miles an
[19:03] hour.
[19:14] I have Mr. A motion from Mr. Proctor for
[19:16] a four-way stop at 53rd in Oliver and
[19:21] additional four-way stop at 53rd in web
[19:24] with uh recommendations from the
[19:26] engineering firm to reduce the speed to
[19:28] 45 miles per hour.
[19:32] Can I repeat that reasonably accurate?
[19:36] You left out some stuttering.
[19:38] » Okay. I I try not to do that, but I'm
[19:40] not immune from it.
[19:45] » Do we have a second on that motion?
[19:54] » Okay. Well, Mr. Mayor,
[19:56] » Go ahead. I I was just going to say
[19:58] after we cleared that that I'd like to
[20:00] decouple those because I do think until
[20:02] we get more information on 53rd and web
[20:05] till Tim can come back to us and say,
[20:07] "Yep, this is the way we'd like to
[20:08] proceed." I don't want to make a
[20:10] decision on either the four-way stop at
[20:12] 53rd and web or the speed limit until we
[20:15] have that additional information. So,
[20:17] I'll go ahead and motion
[20:19] uh for us to move forward with
[20:21] installing a four-way stop at 53rd and
[20:23] Oliver.
[20:24] » I'll second.
[20:32] I have a motion by Mr. Dean for four-way
[20:36] stop at 53rd and Oliver with a second by
[20:39] Mr. David.
[20:42] » I have one point of discussion
[20:44] » And time for discussion. This is right.
[20:47] This is the time. Um, I know when we
[20:50] installed the the four-way stop at 53rd
[20:54] and Rock, I believe was the most recent
[20:55] one.
[20:56] » Most recent one was Woodline, but there
[20:58] is a four-way stop at Rock as well.
[21:00] » Um, I received several comments from
[21:02] residents about the congestion and how
[21:06] long it takes. Uh, one story was related
[21:09] to me trying to go north on Rock Road.
[21:13] Um, to get from the quick trip up to the
[21:16] four-way stop took 45 minutes
[21:20] for this individual. So, I'd like to
[21:24] » 45th or at 53rd.
[21:26] » Sorry, at 45th.
[21:27] » Okay.
[21:28] » Unfortunately, 45th and Wood and and
[21:31] Rock Road is Witchaw's jurisdiction.
[21:33] It's not Bell's jurisdiction.
[21:35] » Okay.
[21:36] » Mr. Mayor, I'll also add, Brandon, this
[21:38] happened last time. Woodlon is supposed
[21:40] to detour to Oliver, but a lot of people
[21:42] are trying to use that route, and that
[21:44] has caused a lot of backups. I see them
[21:46] in the evening as well
[21:48] » Because people are avoiding using the
[21:50] Oliver or Edgemore, like there's
[21:52] multiple routes, but I have noticed that
[21:55] since we've started the Woodlon
[21:56] reconstruction that
[21:59] » It backs up. I know. I've seen it. So,
[22:01] going I'm sorry to interrupt you.
[22:02] » I've definitely noticed that. One thing
[22:04] I'd like to know more about is just
[22:06] based on traffic volume, if we install
[22:09] this four-way stop, are we going to
[22:11] cause a similar backup now on the west
[22:14] side of our city where people are trying
[22:18] to get through and it's just taking
[22:19] forever because they're stopping all the
[22:21] they everybody stops now. I'd like to
[22:25] understand more about that before we
[22:27] just go and do it. Um, with the crash
[22:30] data, I understand it's a great idea,
[22:32] but I'd like to understand the impact a
[22:34] little bit more.
[22:35] » So,
[22:37] in general terms, anytime you add a stop
[22:40] sign where there wasn't one before,
[22:41] you're going to increase delay. That is
[22:43] simple math. The the difference, I
[22:46] think, is you're forcing that, let's
[22:50] call it northbound, southbound traffic
[22:52] because they're all essentially the
[22:54] same. you're stopping that north south
[22:56] traffic to allow people from the east
[22:59] west direction to make that movement
[23:01] safely, whichever movement they're
[23:03] trying to make. That's the angle crashes
[23:06] that we're seeing at those
[23:07] intersections. That's what the pro the
[23:09] majority of them are. And that's the
[23:12] problem that we're trying to solve. And
[23:14] from where we sit, it is
[23:19] a safer situation to increase the delay
[23:21] on north or southbound traffic to allow
[23:23] that turn to happen and reduce crashes.
[23:26] Yes. The downside is there is some
[23:28] delay. What you're talking about is
[23:30] excessive delay, which sounds like it
[23:33] may be for a different reason than the
[23:35] stop sign itself.
[23:37] » Increased traffic, diverted traffic,
[23:38] whatever that may be. And we could try
[23:42] to look at it, but it is a much more
[23:46] complex problem because it's a much
[23:48] broader area. Um, at some point that
[23:52] could become a citywide traffic study
[23:54] that you do not want to pay for. Uh,
[23:57] happy to do it, but maybe not the best
[24:00] use of your funds. And it's also a
[24:02] temporary problem.
[24:05] » So, I don't know if I answered your
[24:06] question or not, but
[24:08] » You did. Thank you.
[24:10] Mr. Mayor,
[24:12] » Mr. Dh David,
[24:13] » I guess I'll ask that question slightly
[24:15] different way. Um, it didn't quite meet
[24:18] the warrant of the 140. So, you got 210
[24:20] going north and south at least and 140
[24:24] going east and west. Um, do you know the
[24:27] ratio of that? Because because like you
[24:29] said, you're trying to solve the east
[24:30] and west problem. Give them a chance to
[24:33] » Yeah, but it's and I don't know the
[24:35] ratio top of my head, but it's a
[24:36] combination of the total volume. If all
[24:39] your traffic's going to one direction,
[24:40] you got nobody coming from the other.
[24:42] Doesn't make any difference because you
[24:43] don't need anybody. It's it's there's
[24:46] enough coming that wants to turn or go
[24:49] through and there's enough going the
[24:50] other direction that it's preventing
[24:52] them from doing so in a reasonable
[24:53] manner.
[24:55] » Speed's part of that. Um the high angle
[24:58] crashes are are part of that because
[24:59] that's the downside of not having enough
[25:01] gap or sufficient gap to be able to make
[25:03] that movement safely. Um I I'm not sure
[25:07] that I understood which question you
[25:08] were asking, but
[25:09] » I was really going to ask that question
[25:10] about web, but um it'd be good data to
[25:13] have for Oliver as well.
[25:15] » What the cross street,
[25:16] » You know,
[25:16] » What the cross street volumes are.
[25:18] » Yeah. Because if you don't have a high
[25:19] cross street volume, you're really not
[25:21] solving the problem. But but what that
[25:23] memo is telling you is
[25:24] » It is
[25:25] » I can show you what the counts are, but
[25:28] those counts put into that
[25:31] warrant actually it meets it at this
[25:34] current state or it meets seven of eight
[25:36] hours.
[25:36] » Yeah, warrant D I thought we didn't
[25:38] quite meet for Oliver,
[25:40] » But it was close enough. I would say I I
[25:42] can't remember the numbers off the top
[25:43] of my head, but
[25:44] » They were both close enough that it was
[25:47] worth warranting even for just that one
[25:50] warrant without the crashes included as
[25:52] the a separate warrant that's met.
[25:54] » I'm really complaining about the the
[25:56] warrant. That that data to me doesn't
[25:58] tell me the whole story. I want to see
[26:01] what the ratio is between the two.
[26:03] » I we have that data. I can provide it.
[26:05] Yeah,
[26:06] I think Oliver obviously warrants it,
[26:09] but um I'd still like to see those
[26:12] numbers, especially on
[26:13] » I think the difference with web is that
[26:15] not only is that north south traffic not
[26:17] stopping, but also you've got a far a
[26:19] further distance to travel to clear
[26:21] those through lanes creating a
[26:24] » A more unsafe situation and then you
[26:27] bring speed into it and it takes it up
[26:28] to a yet another level.
[26:32] » Mr. Mayor, I was also going to say uh
[26:34] you mentioned earlier the volume you
[26:35] don't really have control. The honest
[26:36] truth is we're a growing city and
[26:38] growing cities do have more homes and
[26:40] more homes produce more cars and more
[26:43] cars produce more traffic and more
[26:45] traffic produces more accidents. And so
[26:48] part of what we're dealing with and
[26:49] we're going to continue to deal with is
[26:50] decisions like this. When is the time
[26:52] right to do a four-way stop? When is the
[26:54] time right to do a stoplight? Because
[26:56] some of our intersections are probably
[26:58] approaching that at some point, right?
[27:00] And so this is not going away. And I
[27:03] have heard the same concerns from a few
[27:05] folks. I'll say a couple folks, like
[27:07] very few people have reached out to me
[27:09] also and said, "Please don't put up stop
[27:12] signs because I don't want this to
[27:14] inconvenience me." And I've seen enough
[27:16] data in the crash data for the last few
[27:18] years that I am comfortable with Oliver
[27:21] and I am comfortable with with long beam
[27:23] four-way stops because I know data
[27:25] proves and proved out on rock that we
[27:28] reduce the crashes. And so to me, this
[27:30] is a no-brainer on Oliver. Um web
[27:33] remains to be seen just because I think
[27:35] there's a little bit more how are we
[27:37] going to actually deal with that if we
[27:38] move forward with the four-way stop and
[27:40] actually do it safely. And I don't
[27:42] otherwise I don't think there's any
[27:44] question to me on Oliver.
[27:47] » Okay. Mr. Bctor,
[27:51] » Mr. Mayor, some comments I was I figured
[27:53] I'd offer it is half I I guess Circle
[27:57] School District starts half a mile east
[28:00] of Rock Road and and how a lot of those
[28:03] high school kids or uh that are actually
[28:05] are starting to drive get to school or
[28:07] could get to school is they can drive
[28:09] over to Circle Greenwich Elementary and
[28:11] then they and then they get bust on up
[28:13] the highway. So there there are students
[28:16] that are crossing going that way.
[28:17] There's also students that um are
[28:19] probably using that intersection leaving
[28:21] the high school right over there and
[28:23] even as you know someone who's been
[28:24] driving a long time web that's all
[28:28] that's all really uh kind of sketchy but
[28:30] I'm not really sure what to do about it
[28:32] even as our like our son starting to
[28:34] drive and he'll be going over at some
[28:35] point to cross web and I just I I think
[28:39] about especially new drivers and I don't
[28:41] know if that's even a data point of the
[28:43] age of the drivers but I don't know that
[28:44] it's that big of a factor.
[28:46] It's not something that is part of what
[28:49] we analyze as part of the warrant.
[28:51] » Sure. Yeah. But um anyways, just giving
[28:55] students even a safe way to get across
[28:56] because I mean it's four lanes
[28:58] » Split up going both ways pretty quick.
[29:00] » Yeah, I I get it. I'm I'm a little
[29:03] concerned about it myself. That's a
[29:05] that's a wonky intersection because you
[29:06] got four lanes uh north and south, you
[29:10] got two lanes on the west side, and you
[29:12] got three lanes on the east side. So,
[29:14] it's like that's a it's a ma mix mass of
[29:17] everything. So, that's that's what
[29:19] pretty wild. But anyway, Miss Hamburg,
[29:23] » I know we're on Oliver, but I'll make my
[29:24] web comment too. One other thing I
[29:26] mentioned to Ted was and just thinking
[29:28] through how it is four lanes and you got
[29:30] the speed change. We don't know what's
[29:32] going to happen with 254 and um where
[29:35] the interchange is exactly going to go
[29:37] and development, but you never know
[29:39] that. Another thing I mentioned to Ted
[29:40] was the possibility of a cost sharing
[29:42] with Witchaw at 45th and Web or the
[29:45] airport authority. I I don't know what
[29:48] that would entail to study that and and
[29:50] maybe just do a traffic light there. I
[29:53] know there's one further south. So So I
[29:55] don't have a great answer on that, but I
[29:56] thought it was maybe something worth
[29:57] pursuing since a four-way stop might be
[30:00] a little more complicated, but I I see
[30:03] it both ways, but I'm totally in support
[30:05] um of of the Oliver. I've seen so many
[30:07] crashes and just the issues and the
[30:09] development up there. So, I'll I'll be
[30:10] supporting this specific motion.
[30:12] » The warrant, just for discussion
[30:14] purposes, the warrant for a stop sign is
[30:18] far lower than what a signal would be.
[30:21] And I don't know that again, I don't
[30:22] know the numbers off the top of my head,
[30:23] but I would be surprised if it was
[30:26] enough to warrant a signal
[30:27] » At 45th and web.
[30:29] » Yeah. I I don't know.
[30:31] » I know you guys counted that one. That's
[30:33] it's an additional thing what I was
[30:35] » Whether the city had counted it in the
[30:36] last cycle is what I was trying to
[30:38] remember and I can't
[30:40] » Yeah
[30:42] so if that's a concern we can also look
[30:44] at that
[30:45] » It was just it was just a thought and if
[30:46] there was a cost sharing option there so
[30:50] » Okay I might add we we mainly focused on
[30:53] Oliver because that's that's where it
[30:55] was but because we had Tim looking at
[30:57] traffic studies we said hey will you
[30:59] take a look at web so I I know there's
[31:01] more work to do on web especially with
[31:02] the way it looks out. We'll we'll work
[31:04] on that and uh come back. And thank you,
[31:07] Miss uh Council Member Hamburg, for
[31:08] reminding me of the 45th and web.
[31:11] There's two intersections on on web, so
[31:13] we might take a little look at that as
[31:15] well.
[31:16] » Okay. Any other discussion? We have a we
[31:20] still have a motion to vote on, so I
[31:22] don't want to cut off discussion if
[31:24] we've got any more to do. But if not,
[31:27] I'll call for a vote. All in favor say
[31:29] I. I. I.
[31:31] » Any opposed?
[31:32] That motion carries five to zero. Thank
[31:35] you.
[31:38] All right. The next item on the agenda
[31:39] is citizens concerns. Do we have any
[31:41] citizens here who wish to speak to this
[31:43] council? Please come to the podium and
[31:46] state your name, address, and uh we'll
[31:49] give you three minutes.
[31:52] » Thank you. My name is Keith Erlic. I
[31:54] live at 4957 East Willow Point Court.
[31:58] And I just read last week, according to
[32:01] the Witchaw Eagle, that the city of Bair
[32:04] is getting a Sinclair gas station. And I
[32:08] got to ask why. You're putting a gas
[32:11] station in the middle of the residential
[32:13] area at 45th and Woodlon. At 45th and
[32:17] Woodland,
[32:19] no businesses have ever done well at
[32:21] 45th and Woodland. So now you're going
[32:23] to put a business in there that's never
[32:26] going to make it. And then you're going
[32:27] to end up with environmental hazards
[32:29] trying to pull the tanks out. And you're
[32:32] talking about traffic. You're talking
[32:33] about a 247 out 247 convenience store
[32:36] that's going to draw the wrong kind of
[32:38] people at the wrong time of the day.
[32:40] It's going to tax our our police
[32:43] officers who are going to have to be
[32:44] patrolling that area. The city of Bair
[32:47] is encircled by Quick Trips, Dillons,
[32:50] Casey's, everything else. Why are we
[32:53] trying to put a gas station at 45th in
[32:57] Woodland?
[32:58] This just does makes absolutely no
[33:00] sense. I'm sorry. It just makes no
[33:02] sense. So in the heart of the
[33:04] residential district of Belair,
[33:06] thank you. And you've got
[33:08] $500,000 plus homes just a half a mile
[33:11] down the road and you've got the
[33:13] Catholic Life Center. You're talking
[33:15] about additional traffic, everything
[33:17] else. this place and you know this
[33:18] business is never going to succeed and
[33:21] they're not a cor good corporate
[33:22] business at they have a store at 21st in
[33:26] Woodlon and they're not a good corporate
[33:28] business down there and as soon as the
[33:30] quick trip at 21st and Woodlon is done
[33:34] that store is going to be done. So why
[33:37] are we authorizing somebody to build a
[33:39] building that's never going to make it?
[33:41] That's all I got to say. Thank you.
[33:43] » All right. Thank you. I appreciate your
[33:44] comments. So,
[33:47] any other citizens?
[33:49] I take it we don't have any others. We
[33:51] we don't have any comment cards uh
[33:55] » From the clerk. Okay. Thank you. Well,
[33:57] we'll move on to council member reports
[34:00] and we'll start with Mr. uh Macintosh.
[34:04] » Trying to mix it up a little bit.
[34:06] » Um we'll we'll cover mine in item 13D.
[34:10] » Okay. Very good. Mr. Proctor.
[34:15] No report, Mr. Mayor.
[34:16] » Okay, Mr. David.
[34:18] » No report. Thank you,
[34:19] » Mr. Dean.
[34:20] » Mr. Mayor, I do have one quick thing.
[34:22] Yesterday, our K254 corridor development
[34:25] association plan implementation
[34:27] committee, I know that's a mouthful, had
[34:29] a call uh we visited with several folks
[34:32] from KOT to continue discussing um
[34:34] federal grant opportunities and also a
[34:37] little bit more in depth on what their
[34:38] state funding options look like. Um
[34:41] really the whole idea here is to try to
[34:43] help um move forward some of the smaller
[34:46] short-term improvements as a part of the
[34:47] corridor management plan. So we're
[34:49] trying to learn as much as we can so
[34:51] that we can share that with our members.
[34:52] Um I'm excited. There was a couple
[34:54] really cool things that were shared with
[34:56] us on the call about some opportunities
[34:57] that were specific for corridor um
[35:02] places that have corridor plans. And so
[35:04] that was exciting and I'm looking
[35:06] forward to sharing that with some of our
[35:07] membership on Friday and continuing
[35:09] discussing option options with KOT.
[35:11] That's all I have.
[35:12] » All right. Well, very good. Thank you.
[35:14] Good to hear that. And uh Miss Hamburg.
[35:18] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh nothing report
[35:20] worthy this evening. Thank you.
[35:22] » Okay. Well, thank you. We'll move on.
[35:24] Mayor's report. So on August 12th, I
[35:26] attended the monthly WAMPO meeting and
[35:29] we approved the fiscal year the federal
[35:33] fiscal year 2027 through the federal
[35:35] fiscal year 2030 transportation
[35:37] improvement program. It's also known as
[35:40] the tip. Uh projects must be in the tip
[35:43] to be funded through the WARO process.
[35:45] So, this tip includes 80% funding for
[35:47] construction at 45th Street from Wood
[35:49] Oliver to Woodlon and our bike path uh
[35:53] trail uh phase one. So, those are both
[35:56] in the tip. Now, uh WPO will be doing
[35:59] their annual bicycle pedestrian activity
[36:02] counts on September 16th, 17th, and 19th
[36:04] this year. And they are again looking
[36:06] for volunteers to help with this. Even
[36:08] if someone can only do one two-hour
[36:11] shift, uh that would be helpful. So,
[36:14] more information can be found on the
[36:15] flyer and I don't know if we got the
[36:18] flyer posted yet, but is it is it
[36:20] posted? Okay. So, we will have that
[36:22] posted short uh probably the next day or
[36:24] two. Uh or you can go to the website
[36:27] wampo.org/volunteer
[36:30] and volunteer that way as well, which I
[36:33] think the flyer does the same thing to
[36:35] get you to that same website. So, um on
[36:38] August 13th, I attended the REIT
[36:40] meeting. Uh that's regional economic
[36:43] area partners meeting. Uh so we heard a
[36:46] wrap-up of the preliminary primary
[36:48] election by Dr. Eric Ston and we also
[36:52] briefly discussed whether we should
[36:54] provide a unified regional legislative
[36:56] agenda. Um it appears that that was done
[36:59] a few years ago but not in in the very
[37:02] recent years. So no real decision was
[37:04] made about that although I do think they
[37:06] are trying to pull some data together to
[37:08] put put such an agenda together for our
[37:11] toa um contingency.
[37:15] So this Friday August 21 the K254
[37:19] cordial development association will be
[37:21] meeting at 11:30 at the Benton community
[37:23] room in Benton Kansas. So I'm sure we'll
[37:26] be talking more about the things that
[37:28] Mr. Dean talked about at that meeting.
[37:31] Uh then also a reminder that this
[37:34] Thursday, a week from Thursday, the 27th
[37:37] is the local water consult which is part
[37:40] of the state's regional water planning
[37:42] effort and that will be from 9:00 a.m.
[37:44] to noon at the Witchaw Public Library
[37:46] Advanced Learning Center in downtown
[37:48] Witchaw. Uh while we are not in any
[37:51] drought emergency today, is important
[37:53] that Kansas improve water management for
[37:56] everyone's future. So, I'll now ask our
[37:59] city attorney for her report.
[38:03] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, a lot of work
[38:06] on processes has been happening lately.
[38:10] One specific example, we've had some
[38:13] civilians contact the city wanting to
[38:16] know how to pay their citation. becoming
[38:20] more familiar with Tyler, our system.
[38:23] One of the most recent ways we've
[38:25] learned how to pay is an individual can
[38:28] literally enter into their vehicle
[38:30] information and the state of that
[38:33] vehicle, the license number, and they're
[38:35] able to pay. This has been used uh and
[38:39] practiced with. It's another way for
[38:40] individuals to pay online. So, they can
[38:43] just put in their license number and the
[38:45] state, and they're able to pay through
[38:46] Tyler. Uh again, this payment online
[38:49] system is assisting with municipal court
[38:52] and especially helping with individuals
[38:54] who receive citations who live outside
[38:57] the city limits. So if they're here
[38:59] visiting out of state, they don't have
[39:01] to come all the way back to pay that. Uh
[39:03] the other thing I would like to mention
[39:04] is uh next at our next meeting on
[39:07] September 1, the council will receive an
[39:10] ordinance regarding a uh the city having
[39:13] a records management program. It is a
[39:16] really it's a good opportunity for us to
[39:20] have a consistent practice of record
[39:22] management organization retention and
[39:25] ultimate disposition. It will also help
[39:28] with Kansas open records acts requests
[39:30] that come in. We will know where these
[39:32] uh documents are having official
[39:34] custodians who will be assisted in
[39:36] training. This has all been led in the
[39:39] effort of the city manager. uh it's been
[39:41] very helpful meeting with department
[39:43] heads to find out what is helping with
[39:44] them as well. And then finally if uh the
[39:47] next ordinance after that would be an
[39:49] update to our Kansas open records act
[39:51] ordinance which would include new
[39:53] legislative act enactments that took
[39:55] place last uh year and then also
[39:57] incorporate the processes and
[39:59] definitions from a new city records
[40:02] management program ordinance. That's all
[40:04] I have. Thank you.
[40:05] » Very good. Are just a curiosity
[40:08] question. Are people able to just go to
[40:10] the uh police clerk and pay their
[40:13] traffic fines? Now,
[40:15] » A person can walk in and pay that as
[40:18] well.
[40:18] » Okay.
[40:19] » Just wanted to make sure that we were
[40:20] able to do that. Sound like we're
[40:22] getting all those technology, but some
[40:23] people just want to pay cash, right?
[40:26] Okay.
[40:28] » All right. Very good. Thank you. Uh
[40:30] we'll move on to our city manager
[40:31] report.
[40:32] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council, uh hope
[40:35] you've seen it by now. Woodline update.
[40:37] Uh we posted yesterday that we're about
[40:39] ready to complete phase one of the
[40:42] project. Uh they lay an asphalt today I
[40:45] believe and we'll finish up uh this week
[40:47] and open up phase two next Monday. Um
[40:51] again this too small to read here
[40:53] tonight but um uh we'll move on to phase
[40:56] two which is expected to be around six
[40:58] months. It's a little difficult with how
[41:00] much they'll have to treat lime that has
[41:03] a and but we always have those estimates
[41:05] with weather other delays. So, um that
[41:09] that's just the best uh the best
[41:11] estimate we have right now and we'll
[41:13] we'll try every day to beat that. But,
[41:15] uh we don't a lot of this is out of our
[41:17] control.
[41:19] On September 3rd, we'll have the area
[41:22] Chamber of Commerce uh will be at
[41:24] Walton's uh one of our community
[41:26] businesses and touring that facility.
[41:28] So, I think that'll be good. As well as
[41:30] on September 12th, we'll have Art Turn's
[41:34] memorial dedication. So, just few
[41:36] updates for the council today and I'm
[41:38] here stand for questions.
[41:45] » Any questions for the city manager? All
[41:49] right.
[41:50] Um Okay. So, we don't have any
[41:53] ordinance, resolutions, and file
[41:54] actions. So, and we do have no need for
[41:57] an executive session. Uh, so we're ready
[42:00] to go to discussions, future issues. And
[42:02] the first thing on that agenda is a
[42:05] presentation on court code enforcement.
[42:07] The Bair City Code allows unresolved
[42:10] code violations to be referred to
[42:12] municipal court when mun multiple items
[42:16] to resolve the issue have been
[42:17] unsuccessful. Um, multiple attempts. Uh
[42:21] recently staff developed a process for
[42:24] referring these violations to municipal
[42:25] court directing community development.
[42:28] Uh Paula DS is here to discuss the
[42:30] process and provide additional
[42:32] information. Miss DS.
[42:34] » Thank you Mr. Mayor. Basically I just
[42:37] want to let you all know that currently
[42:39] in code we do have remedy options and
[42:42] enforcement options. They just have not
[42:44] been fully utilized in the past. uh
[42:47] mostly because we didn't have an
[42:49] identified process uh behind the scenes
[42:51] and especially in municipal court. The
[42:53] city attorney worked very diligently
[42:56] with court staff, with the prosecutor,
[42:58] with the judge to identify how these
[43:02] cases would now be brought and developed
[43:03] a whole lot of processes. Maria may want
[43:05] to respond to that, but from behind the
[43:07] scenes, I wanted you all to know that
[43:09] those UCCC code uh violation uh reports
[43:13] and letters will be going to people who
[43:16] continue to violate code enforcement
[43:17] outside of the violation remedy
[43:20] processes. Uh it's very likely that you
[43:23] will now be receiving a lot of phone
[43:25] calls wondering why they're getting sent
[43:27] to municipal court for nuisance and
[43:29] building code violations. And I always
[43:31] like to give the council a heads up to
[43:32] know that those they that's in code now.
[43:35] We're just going to avail those tools
[43:37] now that we have implemented processes
[43:38] behind the scenes and through municipal
[43:40] court. Happy to answer any questions and
[43:42] I know Maria spent a lot of time uh
[43:44] working with municipal court to
[43:45] establish those processes and I'm sure
[43:47] she'll be flexible and answering
[43:49] questions also if you have any.
[43:52] So I do have a one one concern is what
[43:55] is the impact to the court uh about how
[43:59] many cases are we looking at concern
[44:02] in addition to the cases we're already
[44:04] hit that are already hit in municipal
[44:05] court.
[44:06] » So I can say that our code enforcement
[44:07] officer does an excellent job in working
[44:10] diligently. When I say diligently I mean
[44:13] sometimes it stretches months. If they
[44:15] are willing to make progress we are will
[44:17] continue to work with them to make
[44:19] progress. We do have individuals who do
[44:23] not uh
[44:26] want to remedy the situation, can't
[44:29] remedy the saturation, whatever. We've
[44:31] continued to work with them and try, but
[44:34] those are long-term chronic issues. We
[44:38] can guesstimate there might be an impact
[44:41] initially of 12 cases or so. Past that,
[44:44] I don't know what that would be on a
[44:46] monthly basis or per coat court session.
[44:49] Hope it's not huge and 12
[44:51] » It's not huge. I
[44:52] » 12 doesn't seem unreasonable. So,
[44:54] » But we are very reasonable. There are
[44:56] just some right now that we've been
[44:58] trying to work for with months and they
[45:00] just they will not comply. So, we're
[45:02] going to avail this tool.
[45:03] » Okay. Well, I appreciate that.
[45:05] » Any other questions for Miss Towns on
[45:08] these enforcement actions?
[45:12] Unfortunately, we have some that just
[45:14] need to need need to go that route, but
[45:16] unfortunately,
[45:18] » Well, if there's no other questions or
[45:20] discussions, we're going to move on to
[45:23] the Woodlon detour uh request that Mr. U
[45:28] Macintosh asked for. And the reason I'm
[45:29] putting it in now is because uh we were
[45:32] asked to do that before we start into
[45:34] the short-term rental discussion by our
[45:37] city manager. So,
[45:40] um, so it's your question, so
[45:44] it's your turn to speak.
[45:46] » All right. Um,
[45:50] I think we all received an email from
[45:53] uh, Mr. James Small, I believe was his
[45:57] name. Uh, he made some good points in
[46:00] his email along with some things that I
[46:03] have noticed and witnessed just through
[46:06] that neighborhood. If you look at the
[46:08] map up on the board here,
[46:11] phase one is what's currently closed.
[46:14] And what we're seeing is the
[46:17] neighborhood that is at the top of this
[46:20] screen, which is to the west,
[46:24] rather than motorists taking the
[46:26] official detour along 45th down Oliver
[46:31] or along Oliver and then up 37th.
[46:35] People are taking a shortcut through
[46:38] this neighborhood and we're seeing
[46:41] massive
[46:42] massive increase in traffic volumes
[46:45] through this little neighborhood um
[46:47] along Quail Ridge, Edenburgg and then I
[46:51] believe it's is it Danbury?
[46:55] » Peritton. Thank you.
[46:58] Um within a week of phase one being
[47:00] closed, um city staff was very quick and
[47:04] diligent putting up stop signs at many
[47:06] of those intersections. That helped a
[47:09] lot with near misses and people just not
[47:13] paying attention because those roads
[47:15] weren't designed for this kind of
[47:16] traffic volume. Um but the volume is
[47:19] still there. Um
[47:23] according to Mr. smalls email. Traffic
[47:26] is a combination of residents and
[47:28] trucks, very large trucks, semi-truckss,
[47:31] cement mixers, lots of pickup truck uh
[47:35] trucks with trailers and equipment,
[47:38] and just a ton of mixed traffic that
[47:42] should not be going through this
[47:43] neighborhood.
[47:46] Do we have any means to try and mitigate
[47:49] some of this traffic volume? Um, I know
[47:52] we've got the official detour signs up.
[47:54] Is there anything more we can do?
[47:59] » Since these roads are public streets,
[48:03] um, there's not a whole lot that I know
[48:05] of that we can do because the public is
[48:08] allowed to traverse these streets. Um
[48:12] there, if I remember correctly, there
[48:15] may be weight limits on some of those,
[48:17] but our police department does not have
[48:20] any way of weighing vehicles at this
[48:23] point. Um so that would be something
[48:26] that would need to be addressed with the
[48:28] police chief. What do you need to start
[48:30] weighing these vehicles? Um I'm not sure
[48:33] if Miss Shrock has any information but
[48:35] whether the city has any codes or um in
[48:39] the STTO whether there's any um
[48:43] any fines or any kind of measures to
[48:47] discourage that. Um but since it is a
[48:50] public road, you know, I I do understand
[48:53] and I feel for the folks that live along
[48:55] there, we do have the official detours
[48:59] set up. Um, you know, besides that, I'm
[49:02] not sure what we can do. I have been
[49:04] told of cement trucks, etc. Um,
[49:08] construction vehicles using that. I have
[49:10] checked with the contractor and those
[49:12] are not Pearson construction vehicles.
[49:15] Those are we have a lot of other
[49:17] construction going on the city, you
[49:18] know, between buildings and folks trying
[49:20] to get windows done or sighting or
[49:22] whatever have you, you know, normal home
[49:24] events and they're most likely
[49:27] associated with those and not with the
[49:29] Woodlong construction project. So short
[49:31] of that being said, you know, I'm not
[49:33] sure and kind of working with the city
[49:35] attorney and the police chief, I'm
[49:37] really not sure what else we can do if
[49:40] the council has any concerns and notices
[49:42] as we shift into phase
[49:45] two. Um, please let me know. You know,
[49:48] we can let Ted know. We can also always
[49:51] throw some stop signs up. I know the
[49:53] police department does do additional
[49:55] patrols out in that area. if they see
[49:57] unsafe driving behavior, they do make
[50:00] sure to to stop that as long as they
[50:03] have, you know, the means to do so.
[50:05] They're not just going to stop somebody
[50:07] because they're going through a street.
[50:10] So, because it's not a private street,
[50:13] there's, in my understanding, there's
[50:15] not a whole lot that can be done. But
[50:18] Maria, do you have any other thoughts?
[50:24] location.
[50:27] » Well, let me let me just say a little
[50:30] bit of this is academic because this is
[50:32] we're going to phase two Monday. Okay.
[50:35] So, that will stop that traffic pattern.
[50:38] But
[50:39] » There'll be a new traffic pattern. I
[50:41] don't know what that's going to look
[50:42] like.
[50:43] » And so, in in that respect, it's it's
[50:45] it's not academic because there going to
[50:47] be a new traffic pattern. We just don't
[50:48] know what it's going to be. Uh we can
[50:50] make some guesses, but we don't know.
[50:53] But just a question, would we be wise to
[50:56] put up assigned no trucks like at
[51:00] Danbury when uh that when that uh moves
[51:05] to phase two?
[51:06] » That would most likely take council
[51:08] action. I am looking at Maria because
[51:10] I'm not entirely sure what that would
[51:12] take. And
[51:15] from my limited understanding, there
[51:17] would have to be a definition of truck.
[51:19] » Yeah. Well, we don't have I mean,
[51:22] » I'm I'm not sure.
[51:22] » So, the roads aren't built for
[51:24] commercial vehicles. They're built or
[51:26] maybe we should say no commercial
[51:27] vehicles. I don't know. But they're not
[51:29] to to this gentleman's point. I I I did
[51:31] not get this email, so I don't I I know
[51:33] nothing about it. But, uh
[51:36] there those roads are not obviously
[51:38] built for continuous use by commercial
[51:40] vehicles. So, um maybe that would be an
[51:44] appropriate thing to do. I don't know.
[51:45] I'm just just throwing out ideas.
[51:46] » No. And I I appreciate that. That's
[51:48] that's kind of what we want to hear. Um,
[51:50] if you guys have ideas, I would
[51:52] » Ask just for some time to meet with the
[51:55] Maria and the police just to make sure
[51:58] that we have definitions correct.
[52:00] » Mr. D,
[52:01] » I think I I I agree that there's an
[52:03] issue there. I think you're right. It's
[52:05] going to change. It's going to change
[52:06] the pattern. My guess is it's going to
[52:08] solve it a little bit because it's going
[52:09] to be a lot longer of a travel through
[52:11] residential streets. It won't be a quick
[52:12] skip and a jump. But I have seen on
[52:16] projects a lot of times local traffic
[52:18] only signs posted or even a barricade
[52:20] that's entering the residential area
[52:22] that kind of makes it look like it's
[52:24] closed. It doesn't say closed, but it
[52:26] then on that barricade says local
[52:27] traffic only. I would suggest doing
[52:29] something like that, but I think maybe
[52:31] we wait till phase two starts and then
[52:34] kind of study it a little bit and decide
[52:36] where those might need to go. Um or
[52:38] maybe we just kind of do it at the
[52:40] beginning of phase two just so it's a
[52:42] like a new a new process, a new normal
[52:45] kind kind of thing. Um
[52:48] this happened last time too. The only
[52:50] thing that was better about last time,
[52:51] I'll just say this from my experience is
[52:53] we carried traffic through Woodlon one
[52:55] way. It was only one way though. It was
[52:56] northbound. So traffic had less of an in
[53:00] interest in trying to do this shortcut
[53:02] stuff because they would just take
[53:03] Woodlon. They just make sure that they
[53:04] were on the south side and they could go
[53:06] north. Um, but this did happen last
[53:08] time. It wasn't as bad as that specific
[53:11] section, but when we made the decision
[53:12] to fully close it in the effort to try
[53:15] to hopefully speed up this
[53:17] reconstruction, which would ultimately
[53:18] reduce the overall traffic impact on
[53:21] everybody. This is just kind of part of
[53:23] that issue. I think um last time the
[53:27] bigger issue was it seemed like um
[53:29] Edgemore got a lot more traffic and
[53:31] there was lots of people always
[53:32] complaining about how Edgemore cut over
[53:34] to 38th or something and then went to
[53:36] 37th and there was always a backup there
[53:38] because people couldn't turn left at
[53:40] 37th and whatever that road was and so
[53:43] people wanted they demanded I had
[53:45] several emails demanding you have to put
[53:47] up a a stoplight there a temporary
[53:50] stoplight and that was a request of
[53:52] several folks and it just wasn't
[53:53] feasible for the amount traffic that you
[53:55] know is on 37th. It was hey follow the
[53:58] posted detour then you won't have to sit
[54:00] in line like so I think you have to
[54:02] balance this a little bit. People have
[54:04] to understand that's going to happen if
[54:06] people don't follow the posted detour.
[54:08] And if people in these neighborhoods are
[54:10] doing that you know part of it is it's a
[54:13] convenience for them. It makes it a
[54:14] little easier to get to their house that
[54:15] might just be on the other side versus
[54:17] the whole detour. That's probably
[54:18] happening too. Um so there's kind of a I
[54:21] see this all the time. road projects,
[54:23] they're always the same, right? Whether
[54:24] you post a detour or not, people don't
[54:26] follow it. Uh, but I would like to think
[54:28] that we could get construction traffic,
[54:30] especially
[54:32] dang sure, making sure that the
[54:34] contractor on the job knows that that is
[54:35] not a construction route at all. You
[54:38] need to be driving through the work
[54:39] zone. And I think we if we put up some
[54:42] local traffic only in barricades type
[54:44] like type two type three barricades not
[54:46] just a sign something that's right there
[54:49] next to the road that makes it a little
[54:51] should I be doing just gives a little
[54:52] bit more stress I think could help. I
[54:55] just don't know if we want to decide now
[54:56] just do it put it on the residentials
[54:58] around phase two or do we wait and put
[55:00] them up when we see a problem.
[55:04] But that's my kind of two cents. So, I
[55:05] don't think we're going to eliminate it.
[55:07] Um, but we that may make it better.
[55:11] » Mayor Minaj. Oh, sorry. Uh, this I
[55:14] appreciate the conversation. This is
[55:16] kind of the precise reason why I have
[55:17] staff meetings on Wednesday mornings
[55:19] because uh I think when we identified
[55:22] kind of the issues with phase one. I had
[55:24] Ann, Marty, and Chief in the same room
[55:26] and we tried to work out the best
[55:28] feasible solution to our problem at
[55:31] hand. So, I appreciate the conversation.
[55:33] and I'm taking it all down. And uh
[55:35] that's something that we will discuss
[55:37] tomorrow morning and I'll report back to
[55:39] the council and we'll do our best to
[55:41] help control somewhat of a almost an
[55:44] uncontrollable situation. Uh but we will
[55:47] do our best and I hope uh exactly that
[55:50] that's a difficult ask but we will do
[55:53] our best.
[55:53] » Okay, Miss Hamburg,
[55:55] » I was just going to say I Council Member
[55:56] Dean's suggestion about barricades. They
[55:58] had those um they were doing the
[56:00] roundabout up Meridian and into Valley
[56:03] Center and just visually I don't know
[56:05] how it would work on that tighter street
[56:07] but where I don't know if that wouldn't
[56:09] help with the truck traffic that goes oh
[56:11] you know if you're you know a private
[56:13] vehicle and you can skirt through there
[56:15] if you still want to do that but tearing
[56:17] up the streets back there if there was
[56:19] an relatively easy way I don't want to
[56:21] weigh trucks but you know or even just
[56:24] an education component the chief could
[56:26] do um but I think the barricades idea is
[56:28] kind of good. That might deter enough
[56:30] people to slow it down back there. So
[56:32] » Yeah, just
[56:34] » Mr. Macintosh,
[56:37] » I I I concur. I like the barricades idea
[56:40] and if we do it, I'd say we do it in
[56:44] conjunction with starting phase two.
[56:45] Make that happen right away so that
[56:49] nobody gets used to the idea of going
[56:51] through this neighborhood before those
[56:53] go up.
[56:54] » I would I would agree. I'd probably tend
[56:57] to lean that way. And and just to
[56:58] clarify, these would not block the road
[56:59] in any way. They would be set kind of
[57:01] right next to the curb in the grass like
[57:04] in our rightway area. That's usually how
[57:06] I've seen it done. Um if you have four
[57:08] lanes, a lot of times we'll even block
[57:10] the outside lanes and force traffic that
[57:12] is local to use just the two lanes. But
[57:13] in this case with residential, you won't
[57:15] be able to block the street at all.
[57:16] » We may be able to block partially block
[57:18] like put it halfway in the grass and
[57:20] then halfway on the street just to give
[57:22] a little bit more of a
[57:23] » Little tighter. Yep.
[57:24] » Yeah,
[57:25] » This one may go both Danbury and
[57:27] Edgemore.
[57:28] » Correct.
[57:28] » We might need to look at both of those.
[57:30] So, just we don't know. We just have to
[57:32] see what happens. Monday,
[57:34] » I have to be flexible and adjust on the
[57:35] fly.
[57:36] » Right. Okay. All right. Good discussion
[57:40] and uh um I know that Ted will work on
[57:45] on solutions. So, great. Thank you.
[57:48] » Thank you.
[57:49] » All right. Uh the next one is a big item
[57:52] on the agenda tonight is uh discussion
[57:54] presentation of draft document for
[57:56] short-term rentals. So staff has
[57:58] developed a preliminary draft of
[57:59] short-term regulations for review and
[58:03] it's the draft is intended to gather
[58:05] feedback from planning commission and
[58:06] city council before any final
[58:08] regulations are proposed. And again Miss
[58:11] Downs is here to uh present the
[58:13] information and she has my list of 28
[58:16] questions. So,
[58:18] » Thank you for those 20 questions, Mayor.
[58:20] I appreciate it. This document before
[58:23] you that was included in your packet is
[58:25] really designed to make sure that you
[58:26] understand u all the feedback that I've
[58:29] received to date. All the questions
[58:31] we've received from date to date, the
[58:33] research that was completed and some
[58:35] best practices items were put together
[58:37] collectively into this document. It is a
[58:39] really preliminarily working document um
[58:43] that still needs to be evaluated in in
[58:46] multiple ways. Um, I don't think I need
[58:48] to read the staff report, but what I
[58:49] wanted to highlight are just a few
[58:51] things is that the sections um changed a
[58:54] little bit since the last time you've
[58:56] seen it. Um, we've updated it. We've
[58:58] made um we've captured everything that
[59:00] you requested. We also put language to
[59:04] that and built it out. The text has been
[59:06] much further uh built out as you can
[59:08] see. It's grown quite a bit. But that is
[59:10] just to give you the opportunity to
[59:12] review um what that could look like.
[59:15] it's not set in stone. It's not the
[59:17] final document. Um and that um um there
[59:22] are some legal and order of sections
[59:26] that need to be worked out, but also we
[59:29] are having to um get some additional
[59:32] feedback from you on a couple of key
[59:34] issues on whether we should include
[59:35] these things that have come up um since
[59:38] we've talked last. So, a couple of
[59:40] things that we're requesting feedback on
[59:43] um are set out in the report. basically
[59:45] about whether these ST these short-term
[59:48] rentals STRs are able to host gatherings
[59:51] or events. Sometimes they'll rent a
[59:54] home, they'll have a wedding, they'll
[59:56] rent the home that might have a huge
[59:58] graduation per you know uh event. So
[1:00:02] whether we want to include that, that's
[1:00:04] a topic that was not discussed before,
[1:00:05] but it appears in several um STR
[1:00:08] regulations across the state. And also I
[1:00:11] want you to know that one of the other
[1:00:13] requests um for feedback was related to
[1:00:17] the overall process related to we're
[1:00:20] still trying to um clarify and define
[1:00:25] what it means to have a public hearing
[1:00:28] an appeal process. It's a little fuzzy
[1:00:32] right now. And so what we did initially
[1:00:36] was think about how a regular case would
[1:00:39] proceed through our codes, which is
[1:00:42] planning commission would review it.
[1:00:43] They'd make a recommendation to city
[1:00:44] council. City council would uh decide on
[1:00:47] the case. Um we're realizing that
[1:00:50] there's a step that has to be resolved
[1:00:52] in the time that I receive an
[1:00:54] application to review. right now if they
[1:00:58] meet all the recommendations or all the
[1:01:00] requirements of the regulations as
[1:01:02] presented it has to be approved.
[1:01:05] The next piece is that they or if I deny
[1:01:08] it then they have an appeal process but
[1:01:11] then how do the surrounding property
[1:01:13] owners potentially be involved in
[1:01:15] protest petition processes? This is a
[1:01:19] still a little unclear. We haven't
[1:01:21] worked that out quite yet. So, I wanted
[1:01:23] to go on record saying that that is not
[1:01:25] a clean section because we're having
[1:01:27] some difficulty trying to figure out how
[1:01:29] to not only set up the process that
[1:01:31] allows that discussion, but also um how
[1:01:35] best to handle that. So, um when this
[1:01:39] document hit, the mayor is correct. He
[1:01:42] he responded and provided some um
[1:01:45] initial comments back. But I also want
[1:01:47] to say that even though the short-term
[1:01:50] rental regulations is a new regulation,
[1:01:54] it also has several elements that are
[1:01:58] contained in other areas of our code.
[1:02:00] So, for example,
[1:02:03] um
[1:02:05] there are I know that I've said this
[1:02:07] before, there are several things that
[1:02:09] are occurring right now. We're updating
[1:02:11] the zoning code. We also are still
[1:02:13] trying to address um the details set
[1:02:15] forth in SP 418 and we are trying to
[1:02:19] write short-term regulations. There are
[1:02:21] some elements in each of those that
[1:02:23] affect each other. So our hope was
[1:02:26] initially to have the STR regulations
[1:02:28] back to you and approved yet this year.
[1:02:31] However, as we've continued to go
[1:02:33] through and start thinking about the
[1:02:34] development of the zoning codes and some
[1:02:36] of those areas, short-term rentals will
[1:02:39] play a role in making modification to
[1:02:42] our zoning code. For example, back to my
[1:02:44] original for example, um the short-term
[1:02:47] rental regulations are going to state
[1:02:49] and we've had discussions that say that
[1:02:51] they will be allowed in single family
[1:02:54] and two family districts. Okay? So we
[1:02:57] can have the regulation, but in the
[1:03:00] section of our code about zoning
[1:03:02] districts, we have to put language in
[1:03:04] there that says this is a permitted use.
[1:03:06] So they are tied together and
[1:03:08] intertwined quite a bit. If we make
[1:03:10] parking requirements, the parking code
[1:03:13] would need to reflect what those parking
[1:03:16] requirements are or we'd have to
[1:03:17] reference it correctly from the
[1:03:19] short-term rental regulations. So it
[1:03:22] will have an administrative component,
[1:03:24] how they submit applications, how the
[1:03:26] applications are reviewed, what we ask
[1:03:28] them to post, and it'll also intertwine
[1:03:31] with what we need to put into the zoning
[1:03:33] regulations. So the document before you
[1:03:36] just to acclimate you has everything in
[1:03:38] it in one place. And once we determine
[1:03:42] what sections stay, what sections may
[1:03:44] need to go, maybe what may not need to
[1:03:46] be there at all, then we will know
[1:03:48] better which part of the code we need to
[1:03:51] modify.
[1:03:53] It's very complex. I'm sorry. I wish I
[1:03:55] could make it simple, but um because the
[1:03:57] administrative piece might fall within
[1:04:00] the business licensing piece or
[1:04:02] permitting piece or it may all go into
[1:04:05] the zoning code regulations and then
[1:04:06] reference other things. So, um, we're
[1:04:09] hoping that we can get some guidance and
[1:04:12] some general discussion here so we can
[1:04:14] continue to refine the document, but
[1:04:15] also let you know that in the flow of
[1:04:19] how these other projects are affecting
[1:04:23] are being affected by each other that we
[1:04:25] will probably be finalizing
[1:04:29] and asking for approval at the same time
[1:04:31] that we're going through the zoning code
[1:04:32] and asking for approval so that all the
[1:04:34] language matches. Part of what we've
[1:04:36] experienced so far, and I think I've
[1:04:37] said this before related to the zoning
[1:04:39] code, is we'll change one section and
[1:04:42] then we don't change the other section
[1:04:44] or we copied and paste and it doesn't
[1:04:46] it's not coherent. And so this time, if
[1:04:49] we're going to start foundationally, I
[1:04:50] want to make sure that it's coherent so
[1:04:51] that if we approve the STRs ahead of the
[1:04:53] zoning code, we're not coming back in
[1:04:55] January modifying the STR codes again or
[1:04:58] the zoning codes again to match that.
[1:05:00] So, I just wanted to set that tone. But
[1:05:03] at this point, I would love to have
[1:05:06] whatever feedback that you have uh
[1:05:09] related to this document and or
[1:05:11] encourage you that if you don't, please
[1:05:13] continue to send that to me behind the
[1:05:15] scenes in an email because it's very
[1:05:17] helpful for consideration.
[1:05:19] » Mr. Mayor, Mr. D,
[1:05:21] » First of all, Paula, thank you very much
[1:05:23] for putting this together because it is
[1:05:24] super comprehensive. Um, it probably has
[1:05:26] everything you probably could have found
[1:05:28] in every bit of research you did, which
[1:05:30] is good because that's a good starting
[1:05:31] point, but won't be where we finish and
[1:05:33] we all know that. May I make a
[1:05:35] suggestion?
[1:05:36] » Absolutely.
[1:05:37] » I have enough comments here and I'm sure
[1:05:39] everybody does and if we really want to
[1:05:41] give you good feedback and get you on
[1:05:43] the way with here's what we want, here's
[1:05:45] what we don't want. We don't need to go
[1:05:48] line by line, but I think at least page
[1:05:50] by page or maybe main section by
[1:05:52] section. So, A, B, C, D, and just kind
[1:05:55] of clear it with everybody to see if
[1:05:57] there's any specific feedback because I
[1:06:00] don't want to be just rattling these
[1:06:01] off. I think it'd be probably more
[1:06:03] efficient if we just all chimed in on
[1:06:05] part A, let you take notes, chimed in on
[1:06:07] part B. Is that Does that make sense?
[1:06:10] Does everybody agree with that approach?
[1:06:12] » Yeah.
[1:06:13] » Otherwise, we could be here a lot
[1:06:15] longer.
[1:06:16] Yeah, we could do that or you could give
[1:06:18] her individually the information, but um
[1:06:20] yeah, that's that I'm okay with that. I
[1:06:23] have mine explained.
[1:06:25] So,
[1:06:26] » I was about to send a really long email,
[1:06:27] but then I was like, you know what,
[1:06:28] we're going to workshop this. I'm just
[1:06:29] gonna
[1:06:30] » Yeah,
[1:06:30] » I'm just going to fire away.
[1:06:32] » But that's kind of where I was
[1:06:34] suggesting. I don't know if anybody has
[1:06:35] any significant changes to that
[1:06:37] recommendation, but
[1:06:40] » Mr. Proctor.
[1:06:41] » Um well, Mr. Mayor, it it sounds like
[1:06:44] you already sent an email that's kind of
[1:06:46] similar to maybe what M Mr. Dean was
[1:06:49] possibly considering. Um I mean it
[1:06:53] sounds like it it it doesn't look to me
[1:06:55] like it's ready for prime time. Um and
[1:06:58] so maybe that would be just a helpful
[1:07:00] next step is just to email suggestions
[1:07:04] around it rather than sit here for
[1:07:07] » Some time.
[1:07:08] » We had a short meeting. I think we just
[1:07:09] hammer through it personally so we can
[1:07:12] get this I think it'll take us at least
[1:07:13] an hour.
[1:07:14] » Personally, if we if we start going
[1:07:16] through it, I think it'll take us at
[1:07:17] least an hour. So, it's it's it's the
[1:07:20] council's call. It's not I I'm okay
[1:07:22] either way, but I appreciate that that
[1:07:24] suggestion. So, um,
[1:07:26] » And I hear your I hear your suggestion,
[1:07:29] but there are folks that are waiting on
[1:07:31] this and I understand you're needing to
[1:07:33] make it line up with zoning and so maybe
[1:07:36] that means this isn't finalized till the
[1:07:37] end of the year or whatever, but there
[1:07:40] are people that are watching and wanting
[1:07:42] these decisions to be made. And I
[1:07:44] actually think it's really healthy for
[1:07:45] us to sit up here and debate each point
[1:07:47] and decide on it and just move it
[1:07:48] forward because Paul at the end of the
[1:07:50] day, she's only going to go as fast as
[1:07:52] we're going to make decisions. And even
[1:07:54] if we keep sending her emails, she's
[1:07:55] gonna try to get consensus, but we're
[1:07:57] still going to be up here at some point
[1:07:58] having
[1:07:58] » At some point. We're gonna have to have
[1:08:00] that.
[1:08:00] » We're just gonna have the debate at some
[1:08:01] point.
[1:08:02] » So,
[1:08:03] » Yeah. But as far as tonight goes, I I
[1:08:05] I'm just maybe throwing out there. If
[1:08:09] there's that many comments to be made,
[1:08:11] » We probably have a dozen,
[1:08:12] » Right? Because I mean, I see a lot of
[1:08:14] red over there. Um
[1:08:16] » I think I can get through it.
[1:08:17] » I'd like to hear what Miss Hamburg has
[1:08:19] to say.
[1:08:20] I just I kind of had a question along
[1:08:22] those lines too that might relate to
[1:08:24] that probably from Miss Shrock. So, one
[1:08:26] comment I got was, "Oh my gosh, this is
[1:08:28] almost 40 pages and we know it's
[1:08:30] preliminary, but if we're going to list
[1:08:31] out this much detail, it is going to be
[1:08:33] long when it's finished." So, like for
[1:08:35] our good neighbor policies, like with
[1:08:37] our fee schedule, we reference the fee
[1:08:39] schedule in the ordinance and then we
[1:08:41] can make changes to that. It doesn't
[1:08:43] make you have to reapprove the
[1:08:44] ordinance.
[1:08:46] Uh, Maria, is there M. Is there a um
[1:08:50] will this just be one gigantic ordinance
[1:08:52] or will there be portions of it that we
[1:08:53] can reference and maybe if once the
[1:08:55] rubber meets the road we can make
[1:08:56] updates without touching the whole
[1:08:58] ordinance again?
[1:09:01] We were literally just talking about
[1:09:03] that earlier today. If there are going
[1:09:06] to be any type of fees
[1:09:08] regarding this ordinance and if council
[1:09:11] wants to put that into a fee schedule,
[1:09:14] then every time that fee changes, then
[1:09:17] the fee schedule would need to change.
[1:09:20] The ordinance would need to change.
[1:09:22] Unfortunately, there's no getting around
[1:09:25] that. Uh but but I meant in ter I was
[1:09:29] just kind of analogous to that. But in
[1:09:31] terms of like some of these nitty-gritty
[1:09:32] things about are you gonna leave your
[1:09:34] porch light on, you know, all the time.
[1:09:35] Are we going to allow that? Like is
[1:09:37] every single detail is going to have to
[1:09:39] be part of the ordinance or is there a
[1:09:41] way we can reference the good neighbor
[1:09:43] policies without touching the ordinance?
[1:09:46] So, I'll just say this generally
[1:09:48] speaking, there there's going to be an
[1:09:50] opportunity in the regulations
[1:09:52] themselves that could potentially
[1:09:54] reference other parts of the code
[1:09:56] without detailing it this. So, I'm
[1:09:59] trying to think. I'm going to throw a
[1:10:01] ridiculous requirement out, but if you
[1:10:04] say
[1:10:05] we I we say in here we talk about water
[1:10:08] and trash service needing to be
[1:10:10] maintained and in what level, but we do
[1:10:12] have a requirement for water to be
[1:10:15] turned on to residences under part of
[1:10:16] the codes. Alls I'm saying is is that's
[1:10:19] important, but we're going to compare it
[1:10:21] to what's in the code to make sure it
[1:10:22] matches. And then what we would say
[1:10:24] because the short-term rental
[1:10:25] regulations I think where this all
[1:10:27] started was do you have short-term
[1:10:29] rental regulations in your code? The
[1:10:31] answer was no. It's peacemilled for this
[1:10:33] will collectively bring it together. And
[1:10:35] I would say that in this short-term
[1:10:37] regulation section, we would say water
[1:10:40] is required to be on at the residence at
[1:10:42] all time per the city code. If that code
[1:10:46] changes, we're not changing this code.
[1:10:48] We're just changing whatever references
[1:10:50] it. So there will be some reference
[1:10:52] points in here. The the language is in
[1:10:54] here just to make sure that there
[1:10:57] doesn't need to be any changes made as
[1:10:59] we're making changes to the zoning code
[1:11:01] related to that. So you will see some
[1:11:02] references, several of them as as a
[1:11:05] matter of fact because we do have other
[1:11:06] codes already in place. We just want to
[1:11:08] make sure they marry up. Does that
[1:11:10] answer your question?
[1:11:11] » Yeah, I think so. Thank you.
[1:11:13] » Welcome. I think the other really
[1:11:15] important section part is um are there
[1:11:18] wholesale sections that need to be
[1:11:20] removed?
[1:11:22] Are there wholesale sections that might
[1:11:24] be missing? Um and I wouldn't anticipate
[1:11:27] that you would want to word smmith every
[1:11:29] section at this juncture, but ask
[1:11:31] questions about, hey, what about this?
[1:11:33] We need better language. Um and the
[1:11:35] mayor did a great job providing like,
[1:11:37] hey, wait a minute, let's talk about the
[1:11:38] language related to this. And that's
[1:11:40] what I'll do. I'll go back and look for
[1:11:42] the language and we'll modify it out.
[1:11:43] But if there are any wholesale ways in
[1:11:46] which we want to re, you know, remove
[1:11:47] something or this is this is way too
[1:11:50] much Paulo or we don't want to have
[1:11:52] gatherings or we do have want to have
[1:11:54] gatherings. Uh we don't care if they
[1:11:57] leave solar lights on their property,
[1:12:01] you know, all the time. Take out that
[1:12:03] language. Right. So, um I guess that's
[1:12:06] would be my initial guidance related to
[1:12:08] this phase of the project.
[1:12:11] Well, I'll get us started then. Um, I
[1:12:13] personally, in my opinion, just kind of
[1:12:15] reading through how detailed the
[1:12:16] gatherings and events section was. It
[1:12:19] was like three pages and we're trying to
[1:12:21] define like four different event types.
[1:12:23] As I read through that, I said, great
[1:12:25] example of too much red tape. I think
[1:12:28] that most Airbnb, VBO, short-term
[1:12:31] rentals even have policies that don't
[1:12:33] allow those or most uh hosts don't allow
[1:12:36] those. Anyway, what I would suggest is
[1:12:39] that we focus more on total occupancy of
[1:12:42] the STR
[1:12:44] uh which I think you did a really love
[1:12:45] really good job of defining that and I
[1:12:47] actually thought that
[1:12:48] » Excuse me, Mr. Dean. U there was there
[1:12:50] was a suggestion that we not go through
[1:12:52] the detail and I want to get a sense of
[1:12:54] the council if we're going to do that or
[1:12:57] if we want to send those comments to
[1:13:00] Paula let her regurgitate all those
[1:13:03] comments try to uh make some estimate or
[1:13:07] some sense of what that might look like
[1:13:09] and then come back to us then we can
[1:13:11] have that discussion uh at a at a later
[1:13:14] time. I'll disagree on this specific
[1:13:16] item only because Paula just directed us
[1:13:18] to say if there's areas you want
[1:13:19] completely removed, that's what I'm
[1:13:20] speaking to right now.
[1:13:22] » I can also offer that
[1:13:23] » Can be done in
[1:13:24] » There's not a detail. It's it's a
[1:13:25] wholesale of that section. I don't think
[1:13:27] it's needed.
[1:13:28] » Okay. I I I appreciate that. U
[1:13:30] » And I can also offer
[1:13:31] » Let me get a sense.
[1:13:33] » Sure. And I can also offer moving
[1:13:34] forward however you decide. I can also
[1:13:38] um provide the um comparison. So this is
[1:13:43] these were all the sections and this was
[1:13:45] the language that was in the original
[1:13:46] document. These are all the comments
[1:13:48] that I heard. So you understand why
[1:13:51] document has also changed. So there'd be
[1:13:52] a comparison. So you may send 15
[1:13:55] comments, mayor might send 20. You might
[1:13:58] not know what those comments are and I I
[1:14:00] will keep up with a comparison so you
[1:14:01] know where they're coming from moving
[1:14:03] forward. So if something's lost and and
[1:14:06] we change the language and the rest of
[1:14:07] the council says, "Wait a minute, we
[1:14:09] want that back." At least you'll know
[1:14:10] what that is. So,
[1:14:10] » Yeah, I don't I don't personally like
[1:14:12] that because I think we're going to get
[1:14:14] to a point where we're just straight up
[1:14:15] debating and I'd rather get the
[1:14:17] wholesale changes agreed to, at least
[1:14:18] the big changes agreed to, uh, sooner
[1:14:21] rather than later instead of sending
[1:14:23] individual emails and then trying to
[1:14:25] track what was removed and what wasn't.
[1:14:27] » Okay, so let's get a sense of the
[1:14:29] council. Do what do we want to do
[1:14:31] tonight? Do we want to go through this
[1:14:33] now section by section or do we want to
[1:14:35] send the email to Paula, let her
[1:14:38] regurgitate all those emails, try to
[1:14:40] come back with a different with an
[1:14:42] updated document and you know just I
[1:14:44] just need to know what the sense of the
[1:14:46] council is before we spend a lot of time
[1:14:47] on it.
[1:14:48] » I'm prepared for discussion. That's
[1:14:49] what's on
[1:14:50] » I understand I understand your point.
[1:14:52] Okay,
[1:14:53] » Let's hear from the other council
[1:14:54] members.
[1:14:55] » I I think we should go through it. I
[1:14:56] think it's important that we do this in
[1:14:58] open meeting when we can all talk about
[1:15:00] it
[1:15:01] » And I think our citizens care about
[1:15:03] this. They want to know we're discussing
[1:15:05] it and they want to hear this
[1:15:06] discussion.
[1:15:07] » Okay.
[1:15:07] » I think we should go through it right
[1:15:09] now even though it may take an hour.
[1:15:11] » Okay, Miss Amber.
[1:15:13] » This is not a rubber stamping kind of
[1:15:16] council. We're we're going to duke it
[1:15:17] out at some point. I suppose now might
[1:15:19] as well it may be not every line by item
[1:15:21] but like you said if it's like consensus
[1:15:23] is hey let's ask this then we can know
[1:15:26] that now and continue to refine it
[1:15:29] » Mr. David
[1:15:31] » I was fine with the email version
[1:15:33] » But uh sounds like we're I'm outvoted
[1:15:36] that's fine we we can go through it
[1:15:38] » Mr.
[1:15:39] Um, my sense of it is it sounds like
[1:15:41] there's enough big things that would an
[1:15:44] email would cut our debate time down
[1:15:46] significantly if we could get those
[1:15:48] resolved.
[1:15:49] » Um, and so maybe have a better starting
[1:15:51] point because Paul has already kind of
[1:15:54] » Said, "Hey, there's some stuff in here
[1:15:55] that it's going to change."
[1:15:57] » Um, so that that would be my suggestion.
[1:16:00] Of course, we're going to talk about it
[1:16:01] in depth. I just, you know, if it's, you
[1:16:04] know, 45 minutes versus a I don't think
[1:16:05] it'll stop at an hour. I I I think it'll
[1:16:08] take longer than that. But
[1:16:09] » Yeah, I
[1:16:09] » I would suggest too that this isn't the
[1:16:11] last draft. We're going to see a couple
[1:16:13] more drafts. So, uh if we can get some
[1:16:15] of the heavy lifting done tonight, at
[1:16:17] least some of the really obvious things
[1:16:18] we can agree on, the next draft will be
[1:16:20] a little bit cleaner. The next draft
[1:16:21] will be a little cleaner.
[1:16:22] » All right. So, the consensus is more of
[1:16:25] like a three to two, but so we'll we'll
[1:16:27] go we'll go through it. Um let's so
[1:16:30] continue on with your uh your statement,
[1:16:33] Mr. Dean.
[1:16:34] » Thank Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So that I
[1:16:36] was just going to start with the the one
[1:16:37] that was kind of most obvious to me just
[1:16:40] to wholesale remove that section and and
[1:16:43] I'll I'll try to remember how I started
[1:16:44] that. But essentially I read through the
[1:16:46] gatherings and events. Um and there's
[1:16:48] like three pages here and I get it
[1:16:50] right. There's lots there's lots of
[1:16:51] cities that decide to be very very
[1:16:53] prescriptive.
[1:16:53] » Can you be specific as to what section
[1:16:55] you're referencing?
[1:16:56] » Sorry. So if you're following along or
[1:16:58] if you've took notes, it's section V as
[1:17:00] in V as in Baker.
[1:17:01] » V as in Victor.
[1:17:02] » V as in Victor started on page 17.
[1:17:06] So, gatherings and events. After reading
[1:17:08] through it, I just thought this is a
[1:17:10] great example of over complicating it,
[1:17:12] and I know other cities do that, and
[1:17:13] we're not one that tends to do that. My
[1:17:16] initial gut reaction to it was most of
[1:17:18] these, and I've, you know, most of us
[1:17:20] have probably used a short-term rental,
[1:17:22] and a lot of them, the host has a
[1:17:24] policy, no gatherings, no parties, all
[1:17:25] that stuff's usually a part of your
[1:17:27] contract with the host. So, it's kind of
[1:17:29] a best practice anyway. But where I go
[1:17:32] with this is if we're going to have a
[1:17:33] short-term rental regulation and Paula,
[1:17:36] you did a great job. I was trying to
[1:17:37] commend you when we got stopped. I
[1:17:40] thought the the the section where you
[1:17:42] did talk about occupancy and numbers
[1:17:44] for, you know, defining a bedroom,
[1:17:45] numbers per bedroom was really well laid
[1:17:47] out. And I don't know the numbers are
[1:17:49] exactly where we'll be, but the
[1:17:50] structure is really good. I tend to
[1:17:53] think that we can simplify this by
[1:17:55] saying no gatherings and that you have
[1:17:57] to meet the occupancy requirement. I
[1:17:59] think there was a couple of different
[1:18:00] deviations to that. There was a
[1:18:02] nighttime occupancy or an overnight
[1:18:04] occupancy and then there was I think a
[1:18:06] reference to like daytime allowing for
[1:18:09] guests like additional people. I I would
[1:18:12] tend to think we just go get rid of a
[1:18:14] gatherings provision altogether and just
[1:18:16] say you have to meet these these
[1:18:18] specific occupancy requirements. And um
[1:18:22] so that's kind of my thought just on
[1:18:23] gatherings. I've got some other thoughts
[1:18:25] on parking that's kind of related but
[1:18:26] it's a different section. So, I'll stop
[1:18:28] there, but that's my two cents.
[1:18:33] » Okay. So, we're looking at section V as
[1:18:35] in Victor and talking about gatherings.
[1:18:38] Uh my only two comments on this were
[1:18:41] that paragraph 4D uh says where's the
[1:18:45] where is the permit defined? Because I
[1:18:47] didn't see that, which is somewhat of a
[1:18:50] a trivia type thing, but needs to be
[1:18:51] looked at. And then this paragraph
[1:18:54] seven, the permits require a lot more
[1:18:55] than seven days from application to
[1:18:57] event date and we need to say how far in
[1:18:59] advance those applications need to be
[1:19:01] made. Those are my only comments about
[1:19:03] section B. But are there other have
[1:19:06] comments?
[1:19:07] » Mr. Mayor,
[1:19:09] » Uh I
[1:19:11] partially agree with Mr. Dean. Um I I
[1:19:15] think section V we could wholesale
[1:19:18] delete. Um we is uh my my note was is
[1:19:22] this section even necessary? We cover
[1:19:24] parking, we cover noise in other
[1:19:27] sections. Um occupancy is part of it,
[1:19:31] but as long as parking and noise are
[1:19:33] covered, do people care about occupancy
[1:19:36] park? They they care that they can still
[1:19:38] get to their home. They care that they
[1:19:40] can enjoy their own space. If parking
[1:19:42] and noise are covered, why do we care
[1:19:45] about gatherings? I I would be a
[1:19:48] proponent of just deleting or very very
[1:19:52] making this a tiny section. Um just
[1:19:55] maybe a paragraph if that.
[1:20:02] » Any other comments on this section?
[1:20:06] » And if not we'll
[1:20:07] » One more.
[1:20:08] » Okay. Um
[1:20:11] the later portion of the gatherings and
[1:20:15] events seem to be more geared toward
[1:20:19] um like almost using an STR as a venue
[1:20:24] space.
[1:20:25] » Does this really fall under STRs?
[1:20:28] Having a venue like if I'm thinking I
[1:20:31] have a 5 acre property that I want to
[1:20:33] lease out to somebody holding a wedding.
[1:20:36] Does this really fall under our STR?
[1:20:40] ordinance.
[1:20:42] » It does now.
[1:20:44] » Okay.
[1:20:45] » I put it in
[1:20:46] » Stays here.
[1:20:47] » I I put it in, but I can look um
[1:20:52] let me let me ponder that just a little
[1:20:54] bit because there is a use issue related
[1:20:57] to properties about how the property can
[1:21:00] be used. And so if they're temporarily
[1:21:03] um renting it, does the city want to
[1:21:06] allow, you know, 500 guests for a
[1:21:09] backyard wedding because they can put
[1:21:12] 500 chairs in the backyard? But it goes
[1:21:14] back to what you said are related to
[1:21:15] parking is another issue that they're
[1:21:17] going to have to face. And then um uh
[1:21:21] noise, but can they get an what you're
[1:21:24] really asking is can they get an event
[1:21:26] permit at a residence? So, I'll look at
[1:21:29] that section of the code just to clarify
[1:21:31] what that language might say.
[1:21:32] » Sure.
[1:21:33] » Thank you.
[1:21:33] » So,
[1:21:34] » Yeah, just a good thought. I mean,
[1:21:36] because the venue portion, I was reading
[1:21:38] through that. I was like, does this
[1:21:38] apply? But maybe this section just kind
[1:21:41] of spitballing a little bit is limited
[1:21:44] in the fact that it's very specific to
[1:21:47] large events that would exceed the
[1:21:51] capacity or whatever. And the reason why
[1:21:53] I was going to bring up parking is it is
[1:21:55] it is related. It is. And I think
[1:21:57] occupants and parking are really
[1:21:58] related. But maybe this is a section,
[1:22:00] but it's not allowed unless it's an
[1:22:03] event that's permitted, a venue, you
[1:22:05] know, a venue that's permitted. And
[1:22:06] maybe it's an additional step. Like it's
[1:22:09] not it's under the STR, but maybe it's a
[1:22:11] a separate type of process. But I do
[1:22:14] agree, Paula, there are lots of event
[1:22:17] venues and STRs that kind of go combo,
[1:22:19] right? Like you can rent the house and
[1:22:21] they've got a bar. And I've seen that.
[1:22:22] That's the thing. I don't know that we
[1:22:24] have that in Bair. We may um I also
[1:22:27] would say we can add to this code if we
[1:22:30] start seeing issues. If we have a case
[1:22:32] by case that we keep seeing okay we need
[1:22:34] to we need to amend the code. So we
[1:22:36] don't have to get this 100% perfect. Um
[1:22:40] but
[1:22:40] » Sure
[1:22:41] » I could see maybe having a small blurb
[1:22:43] covering a more of a venue setup.
[1:22:45] » Yes.
[1:22:48] » Any other discussion on section V?
[1:22:52] Mr. Parker? Yeah, I I I second the
[1:22:55] practical approach of if parking's
[1:22:58] addressed and there's some other things
[1:22:59] like, you know, do we need to find more
[1:23:02] things to try to pick apart?
[1:23:06] » Yeah, I I think the spirit of that that
[1:23:08] comment is is I think I agree with it,
[1:23:12] too. I think that it's probably
[1:23:14] overkill.
[1:23:16] So,
[1:23:17] » Want to move on to another item? It
[1:23:19] sounds like gatherings is maybe shot uh
[1:23:21] t parking requirements. My my general
[1:23:24] thought when I read through this was a
[1:23:25] little bit I did start thinking about
[1:23:28] size of house capacity. I did like how
[1:23:30] in the occupancy piece which is a again
[1:23:33] these are kind of related so I'll
[1:23:34] probably talk both a little bit. It
[1:23:36] seems to me that, you know, if you think
[1:23:38] through a normal home, you know, four or
[1:23:41] five bedrooms in Bair and if you have,
[1:23:44] you know, the two occupancy and um you
[1:23:47] have the extra two or three guests,
[1:23:49] whatever you decide, whatever we decide
[1:23:50] there, your average home is going to
[1:23:52] have between 12 and maybe 15 people that
[1:23:55] are permitted to be there overnight. And
[1:23:58] I think there was a suggestion in this
[1:24:00] code that there is a offsite or I'm
[1:24:03] sorry off-site off streetet parking
[1:24:05] requirement per bedroom. So I mean in
[1:24:08] most cases a five you know even if you
[1:24:10] get a sixbedroom you've got a two or
[1:24:12] three car garage. You've got probably a
[1:24:15] driveway that can hold three or four
[1:24:16] cars. Now is it inconvenient for the
[1:24:18] short-term rental person that has to
[1:24:20] move cars around? Yeah. But it's not
[1:24:22] inconvenient for the neighbor that
[1:24:24] doesn't get blocked by the person that's
[1:24:25] renting it. So, there's a little bit of
[1:24:27] that that goes on, but just parking in
[1:24:29] general. I don't really like the idea of
[1:24:32] being super prescriptive and requiring a
[1:24:34] parking plan and going just over
[1:24:36] government on this. I feel like
[1:24:38] occupancy and parking are pretty tied.
[1:24:41] And I think if you set that at a a
[1:24:43] number and you say STR of this size has
[1:24:47] to provide off-site off streetet parking
[1:24:50] and then only their guests, right? You
[1:24:52] can't legally keep people from parking
[1:24:54] on the street, right? there's going to
[1:24:55] be a situation that occurs where there
[1:24:58] are guests that come over and there are
[1:25:00] going to be a few people that park on
[1:25:01] the street legally. Now, if they're
[1:25:03] legally parked, that's a different
[1:25:04] thing. But legally parked on the street,
[1:25:07] I think you're going to have some of
[1:25:08] that. But if you mitigate the size of
[1:25:11] the occupancy, it's not 20 or 30 people
[1:25:13] staying at this place or having a party,
[1:25:16] a massive party. I think a lot of your
[1:25:18] parking issues
[1:25:21] tend to minimize quite a bit and might
[1:25:23] not cover 100% of your cases, but
[1:25:25] probably 90% are going to resolve just
[1:25:27] based on that. So, with that in mind, in
[1:25:30] the spirit of that and simplifying, I
[1:25:32] think the parking requirement section
[1:25:34] should stay, but I think it should be
[1:25:36] referred or referenced back to occupancy
[1:25:38] and let's just come up with a number
[1:25:40] that we feel like maybe covers most
[1:25:42] cases and try to just set that up so
[1:25:44] it's very clear. And I think that'll
[1:25:47] mitigate a lot of problems. It's not
[1:25:49] going to solve every problem, but you
[1:25:52] can't keep people from parking on the
[1:25:53] street. Like it's a public the public
[1:25:55] street will be parked by people that
[1:25:56] want to park there. So, we're not going
[1:25:58] to do that by this STR code, but we
[1:26:00] could probably do better than what has
[1:26:03] been happening. So, that's just just my
[1:26:05] general thought on uh section T parking
[1:26:08] requirements.
[1:26:10] » Yeah. So, I I somewhat disagree with
[1:26:13] that. Um, I know when we've looked at
[1:26:16] special use permits before, we've put in
[1:26:19] places for parking uh plans. And
[1:26:24] unfortunately, this is one of those
[1:26:26] uncontrollables. Uh, you can say, okay,
[1:26:28] you have to have one parking spot for
[1:26:31] every two occupants or something like
[1:26:33] that. You can make some arbitrary thing
[1:26:35] like that in in your code. um or some
[1:26:38] rule like that in your code, but
[1:26:41] every situation is going to be a little
[1:26:42] bit different and I don't think we can
[1:26:46] outguess that in the code. And so I
[1:26:49] think a better way of doing it is just
[1:26:52] give us a parking plan. What is that
[1:26:54] plan? Uh because each house can have a
[1:26:58] different configuration. Some will have
[1:27:00] a threecar garage, some will have a
[1:27:02] two-car garage. you know, they'll have
[1:27:04] different all kinds of different
[1:27:05] configurations and we can't second guess
[1:27:08] that in code. That's just not going to
[1:27:10] happen. So that's I so I think it was
[1:27:14] appropriate to have it in here. That's
[1:27:16] just my two cents.
[1:27:20] » I Mr.
[1:27:21] » I also agree with the parking plan idea.
[1:27:24] Um, I've been I've stayed at a
[1:27:26] short-term rental where um not only was
[1:27:29] there a parking plan, but it was shared
[1:27:31] with me, the renter, and and it was a
[1:27:35] map of the property and said, "Hey,
[1:27:37] here's where you're allowed to park.
[1:27:39] Park in these places." Um, and that was
[1:27:42] great. I knew exactly where I could and
[1:27:45] could not put my car. Um, so I I think
[1:27:49] the parking plan's a great idea. It's
[1:27:51] helpful for guests and it'll be helpful
[1:27:54] to all the neighbors because
[1:27:57] guests will likely comply with that. Um,
[1:28:00] and so the neighbors will see that
[1:28:02] guests always park in these designated
[1:28:05] spots that are fine to park in.
[1:28:12] » Mr. Mayor,
[1:28:13] » Mr. Hamburg,
[1:28:15] » Just thinking about the bigger picture.
[1:28:18] You can't you don't have a crystal ball,
[1:28:20] but we have to think about your your
[1:28:22] time and staff time and going through
[1:28:24] all this. Do you have a sense of how
[1:28:26] many short-term rentals are currently in
[1:28:29] Bair and like how many uh permits you're
[1:28:32] going to have to get through in 60 days?
[1:28:34] » Um I'm aware of 15 currently operating.
[1:28:40] And believe it or not, in the last
[1:28:43] couple months, I've gotten six
[1:28:45] additional calls from people who are
[1:28:47] wanting to buy properties and turn them
[1:28:48] in STRs. And I keep telling them we're
[1:28:51] writing regulations that if they I had a
[1:28:53] call person call me yesterday said
[1:28:56] there's a house uh and we're thinking
[1:28:58] about buying it. We want to know what
[1:28:59] the possibility is. And I was just
[1:29:01] honest. We're not looking at banning
[1:29:03] them. However, they will have
[1:29:05] restrictions. Um, and so you proceed at
[1:29:09] your own
[1:29:10] your own risk at this point, but because
[1:29:13] in lie of that, you have to have a you
[1:29:15] have to have a special use permit right
[1:29:16] now. So I I don't know that I think they
[1:29:19] were going to buy it and sit on it until
[1:29:21] we decided what we were going to do and
[1:29:22] meet the requirements because I did
[1:29:24] share with them that there's likely that
[1:29:25] we'll have density requirements in
[1:29:27] neighborhoods. Is that do you think that
[1:29:29] it's um just the market and they're
[1:29:32] thinking about buying it or is there a
[1:29:33] scramble in here to try to become an
[1:29:35] established STR and get grandfathered
[1:29:38] in?
[1:29:39] » Probably more like they're just they
[1:29:41] were thinking about buying it up here
[1:29:42] and we're curious. Gotcha.
[1:29:45] » Or as maybe an existing STR
[1:29:48] » That I don't know about. Correct.
[1:29:51] » Yep. That's probably true. The only way
[1:29:53] to publicly know is to get on to the
[1:29:55] public sites that advertise. Anything
[1:29:58] short of that, they could be operating
[1:30:00] by word of mouth, by other means. So,
[1:30:02] there could be more. I have no idea, but
[1:30:04] we have at least 15 now and wanting to
[1:30:07] grow.
[1:30:09] » Okay. So, any other discussions
[1:30:11] regarding section T as in the top?
[1:30:14] » One other thought I'll make, and I do
[1:30:16] agree. I like the idea of um the guests
[1:30:20] knowing about the parking requirements,
[1:30:21] whether it's an official parking plan. I
[1:30:23] don't tend to like that idea. I think
[1:30:25] I'd like it to somehow be communicated
[1:30:28] to them through the good neighbor policy
[1:30:30] that's required instead of having a
[1:30:32] specific parking plan. Just have this is
[1:30:34] how many spots they have to all be off
[1:30:36] street like and be very strict with that
[1:30:39] so that there isn't
[1:30:41] a ton of issues with the neighbors being
[1:30:44] inconvenienced. Uh because that does
[1:30:46] tend to happen. It that even honestly
[1:30:47] that even happens just in a regular
[1:30:50] house, not a short-term rental. People
[1:30:52] will try to be more convenient for them
[1:30:54] even if it makes it more inconvenient
[1:30:55] for somebody else. They'll park in a
[1:30:57] spot that just makes it harder. So, but
[1:31:00] again, on a legal street, legal parked,
[1:31:02] can't really do much about it. I don't
[1:31:04] even know if a parking plan would fix
[1:31:05] that because anybody that comes that
[1:31:07] house could legally park on a street
[1:31:09] legally around it. Um I don't know that
[1:31:11] that solves our problem just having a
[1:31:13] parking plan. But I do understand, you
[1:31:16] know, how maybe making it clearer to the
[1:31:19] host and the the guests where the
[1:31:22] parking is
[1:31:24] available.
[1:31:26] Be good.
[1:31:32] All right. Any other comments on section
[1:31:35] T?
[1:31:38] And if not, are there other sections
[1:31:39] that you had outlined, Mr. Dean, that
[1:31:42] you wanted to talk about? So, I had one
[1:31:44] other section that I could just
[1:31:46] wholesale get rid of in my opinion. I
[1:31:49] don't know who who will agree with me or
[1:31:50] not, but uh you unique structures. I
[1:31:53] kind of read through this and yeah, it
[1:31:55] sounds really nice and I'm sure there's
[1:31:56] lots of parts of the country, you know,
[1:31:58] like in Colorado up in the mountains and
[1:32:00] all these other places where it might
[1:32:01] make sense, but this strikes me as a
[1:32:04] section that's not needed. and if we had
[1:32:06] a person that was interested in doing
[1:32:08] something very unique, um, you know,
[1:32:11] they could come to us and we could
[1:32:13] consider it and maybe we could consider
[1:32:14] amending our policy. It doesn't feel
[1:32:16] like this is going to play a lot into
[1:32:18] our STR regulations, at least at this
[1:32:20] point. So, I'd be good with just
[1:32:22] removing it um, in its entirety. U,
[1:32:25] unique structures is the section page
[1:32:28] 16.
[1:32:31] Anyone else have any comments about
[1:32:33] section U unique structures?
[1:32:37] » Is there a way we can just make it a
[1:32:40] special permit within the STR?
[1:32:44] » It would be by its very nature an a
[1:32:48] special use no matter what if we didn't
[1:32:51] include it as a consideration in the
[1:32:54] STRS.
[1:32:55] But we had we had, you know, we had lots
[1:32:58] of discussion about this coming up
[1:32:59] because in another city they used a
[1:33:02] covered wagon on their property,
[1:33:03] » Right?
[1:33:04] » And they we've had others where they've
[1:33:06] brought an airstream in because it fits
[1:33:08] on the property. And so that was why it
[1:33:11] got included. Um I don't I can't
[1:33:14] predict, but as we've said before,
[1:33:16] people are very creative and if they
[1:33:19] want to earn an income related to an
[1:33:21] STR, this might be a way to do that. So,
[1:33:25] um, but if they came to me with even
[1:33:28] without a a regulations, the short-term
[1:33:31] rental regulations written, it would be
[1:33:33] a special use permit uh case that would
[1:33:36] go through the normal process.
[1:33:38] » Okay.
[1:33:41] » Then then if I'm understanding that
[1:33:42] correct, I think I agree with Council
[1:33:43] Member Dean. We can just deal with it
[1:33:45] that way and not enumerate it here, I
[1:33:47] guess.
[1:33:50] » Okay.
[1:33:51] That would be would that then become a
[1:33:53] reference to the part of the code?
[1:33:57] » It wouldn't be included in the
[1:33:58] short-term rentals. They would have to
[1:34:00] come to the city in general and say,
[1:34:02] "Hey, I want to put an airirstream on my
[1:34:04] property and turn it into an STR." And I
[1:34:06] would say, "You need to file a special
[1:34:07] use case and it would follow proper
[1:34:08] channels."
[1:34:09] » Okay. Very good. All right.
[1:34:13] » Mr. Dean, did you have any other
[1:34:15] sections you wanted to discuss?
[1:34:18] So, I'm trying to kind of consolidate
[1:34:20] them into the maybe the ones that um are
[1:34:22] bigger chunks. There are there is a
[1:34:24] little bit of word smithing. I'm not
[1:34:25] going to get into that. Uh the other
[1:34:27] thing I noticed,
[1:34:30] sorry, I was trying to mark that off. Um
[1:34:34] under the limited home rental exemption,
[1:34:37] um that's item G, page six. I read
[1:34:40] through that and I remember having this
[1:34:41] discussion and I I actually originally
[1:34:43] was like, "No, I don't really want that
[1:34:45] exception or whatever." But as I read
[1:34:46] through it and as I thought about it and
[1:34:48] did some research and also as folks
[1:34:50] reached out to me about some of their um
[1:34:53] interests in our what we're doing here
[1:34:57] uh to learn more about it. Um, it feels
[1:35:00] to me like some folks, you know,
[1:35:01] obviously as they're retired on fixed in
[1:35:04] income, may travel more, uh, may not
[1:35:07] want to set up a full-fledged short-term
[1:35:09] rental for operation all the time, but
[1:35:11] may take a long vacation for a month or
[1:35:14] may winter in Phoenix and maybe, you
[1:35:16] know, a dozen weekends of the year their
[1:35:18] homes available. And as I thought
[1:35:20] through that, I looked at 14 calendar
[1:35:21] days and like that doesn't really seem
[1:35:23] to me like a great way to help reduce
[1:35:25] the impact of their property rights and
[1:35:27] balance it with the others. Just in the
[1:35:29] kind of
[1:35:31] um kind of thinking in that line of uh
[1:35:34] thinking, I was thinking, you know,
[1:35:36] maybe we should have this exemption. So,
[1:35:38] I'm actually um thinking maybe 14 days
[1:35:40] isn't enough and maybe it's something
[1:35:41] like 30 days just to try to give people
[1:35:44] a more of a chance to as they're retired
[1:35:47] or fixed income to earn some additional
[1:35:49] income while they're traveling. I know a
[1:35:50] lot of people like doing that and I
[1:35:53] think simplifying it for that use case
[1:35:57] uh makes a lot of sense to me. It seemed
[1:35:59] like you had a requirement for a simple
[1:36:00] registration form. So, it's not like the
[1:36:02] city wouldn't know about it if they knew
[1:36:04] about it at least, but it wouldn't be as
[1:36:06] um rigorous. It wouldn't require the
[1:36:09] business license or the permitting. It
[1:36:10] would be a little bit more streamlined
[1:36:12] for those folks that may use it. You
[1:36:14] know, um 30 days is kind of my
[1:36:16] recommendation. I I think 30 days sounds
[1:36:18] like a fair number. Um so, that was kind
[1:36:20] of one major suggestion I had was to
[1:36:22] keep it and to increase the days to 30
[1:36:25] uh days per year.
[1:36:30] » Mr. Mayor,
[1:36:31] » Mr. D great, Mr. David.
[1:36:34] » So, maybe I'm missing it, but whether it
[1:36:36] was 14 days or 30 days, the problems
[1:36:39] from the from the short-term rentals
[1:36:41] that we're trying to address here would
[1:36:43] still exist, no matter the intent of the
[1:36:46] owner or the the reason they're renting
[1:36:49] it. Correct.
[1:36:49] » The parking and all that would still
[1:36:51] exist. And you'd still want all those
[1:36:54] restrictions, wouldn't you? There's
[1:36:55] still, if you read that full section,
[1:36:57] Greg, in its entirety, it still says to
[1:36:59] qualify for the exemption, um, you must
[1:37:01] follow these, um, items. Um, so they're
[1:37:05] still required to follow all of those.
[1:37:08] It's just a little more simple for them
[1:37:10] to get to get going because they're not
[1:37:12] going to be running it as a full
[1:37:13] business. Um, so that's why I'm in
[1:37:16] support of this exemption because they
[1:37:17] still have to require like all those
[1:37:19] items there. The property is is is the
[1:37:21] owner's primary residence. um no more
[1:37:24] than one booking at a time. All rentals
[1:37:25] comply with noise parking occupancy
[1:37:27] nuance nuisance regulations. The
[1:37:29] property owner provides notice to the
[1:37:30] city prior to the first rental. Um I'm
[1:37:33] comfortable with the limited use nature
[1:37:36] of a person that may leave for a month
[1:37:38] at a time or you know for the winter um
[1:37:42] if they have to follow those same deals
[1:37:44] to making it a little easier for those
[1:37:46] folks because the startup I mean most
[1:37:48] people probably wouldn't do that. um
[1:37:50] they wouldn't set up a STR for 14 days,
[1:37:53] right? Um and there's a reason for that
[1:37:55] because it would cost you cost them
[1:37:57] money to set it up and all that, but I'm
[1:37:59] not wanting to take away the requirement
[1:38:01] that they still need to be a good
[1:38:02] neighbor. They still need to follow
[1:38:03] these requirements and if they don't,
[1:38:05] they can still lose that, you know,
[1:38:08] ability. Uh but I do like the idea of
[1:38:10] allowing that to be um available for
[1:38:13] folks that want to do. I don't know if
[1:38:15] everybody will will do that, but it it
[1:38:17] seems like it would make sense for some
[1:38:19] folks um to have that opportunity to do
[1:38:22] it. And you know, one of the questions I
[1:38:25] had on it, Paula, though, was is how
[1:38:27] does it fit in with um the density and
[1:38:31] spacing and I assume all those same
[1:38:33] things will still apply, but I I was
[1:38:35] going to verify that. That was one of
[1:38:36] the notes questions I had.
[1:38:37] » This is one of the more difficult
[1:38:39] sections. Um, and it's in here because
[1:38:41] we had a little bit of uh conversation,
[1:38:44] quite a bit of conversation about it. In
[1:38:46] the first place, if somebody's gone for
[1:38:48] the winter,
[1:38:48] » Right?
[1:38:49] » They're likely going to rent it to
[1:38:51] somebody the entire winter
[1:38:53] » Potentially.
[1:38:54] » Potentially, it could be three, four,
[1:38:55] five months, right?
[1:38:56] » At that point, they are a short-term
[1:38:58] rental. They would they would have
[1:39:00] » Be outside a short
[1:39:01] » If they're gone for no more than 30
[1:39:04] days, which would be one weekend a
[1:39:06] month. Let's just say they want to rent
[1:39:08] out their house for one weekend a month.
[1:39:11] They just can't do it on a public
[1:39:14] advertising site be because the STR
[1:39:17] allows you to do it up to, you know,
[1:39:18] it's less than 28 days a month, but this
[1:39:20] is 30 days a year,
[1:39:21] » Right?
[1:39:22] » Um it it's highly likely we would never
[1:39:24] know if they didn't do it on one of the
[1:39:27] public sites, right?
[1:39:29] » They had a family member that came and
[1:39:32] rented the house for them or whatever.
[1:39:33] So, this is in case we
[1:39:37] uh have somebody call in, a neighbor or
[1:39:39] a budding property owner or somebody
[1:39:41] saying, "Hey, they're renting that
[1:39:42] property out." We're asking them to
[1:39:44] register and just tell us that they're
[1:39:45] going to utilize their property because
[1:39:47] they already know in advance that they
[1:39:48] are going to be gone one month every
[1:39:50] year to Arizona to play golf. Um, but
[1:39:55] whether they do that is a big question
[1:39:57] mark. And how often they do that is
[1:40:00] another big question mark. This is an
[1:40:02] enforcable issue,
[1:40:04] » Right?
[1:40:05] » And we will only be able to enforce or
[1:40:06] change it if we know about it. But it's
[1:40:09] in there as part of a protection to say
[1:40:11] if you're going to do this long term,
[1:40:13] you're going to probably meet the
[1:40:14] standards of an STR and not just I'm
[1:40:17] leaving for five months and I'm renting
[1:40:18] this out. Now, there's nothing that
[1:40:20] prevents them from a long-term rental
[1:40:23] because that's not part of this because
[1:40:24] it's designed to be short-term rental.
[1:40:26] But if they are going to do a short
[1:40:27] short period of time, we put it in
[1:40:29] there.
[1:40:30] » Yep. No, and I agree with it. I mean, I
[1:40:32] think that I was suggesting more days
[1:40:33] because I I could see somebody taking a
[1:40:35] four-week, you know, up to a four-week
[1:40:37] vacation and maybe having it available
[1:40:38] for that whole time for a short rental,
[1:40:40] » Whether it's continuous or whether it's
[1:40:42] just parts of that month that they're
[1:40:44] gone. And I also could see people that
[1:40:46] winter,
[1:40:47] » Maybe their house is available and maybe
[1:40:48] they didn't get it rented, but there
[1:40:50] are, you know, key weekends that
[1:40:52] » Sure
[1:40:52] » Are able to get booked up and it's not
[1:40:54] continuous, but it can't be over a total
[1:40:56] of 30 days in the year. So, but I I was
[1:41:00] kind of curious though, and I don't know
[1:41:01] that you answered it, they still meet
[1:41:03] all the requirements. So, say we had um
[1:41:06] three, you know, permitted short-term
[1:41:10] rentals. If they called up and said, I
[1:41:12] want to do this application and you had
[1:41:14] three short-term rentals within the
[1:41:16] density, it I assume that that form that
[1:41:19] application form would be denied or
[1:41:22] would it?
[1:41:23] » Uh that's a great question to
[1:41:24] operationalize it. It would assume I
[1:41:26] would assume that because of the
[1:41:27] shortness and it because it doesn't
[1:41:29] truly fit the definition of the
[1:41:30] short-term rental that we would not deny
[1:41:33] it from a density perspective,
[1:41:35] » But we could deny it. That's a that's a
[1:41:38] detail that probably we'll have to come
[1:41:40] back for you to
[1:41:42] » To weigh in on.
[1:41:46] » Any other comments on section G,
[1:41:50] limited home rental exemption?
[1:41:57] hearing none. Is that all the sections
[1:41:59] that you had comments on, Mr. Dean?
[1:42:03] » Let's see. I think those are the major
[1:42:05] ones.
[1:42:06] » Okay.
[1:42:07] » Uh the other other item I had u Paula um
[1:42:10] and this is probably open for
[1:42:11] discussion. And maybe people know under
[1:42:14] um section I the separation and density
[1:42:17] requirements
[1:42:19] um
[1:42:22] number two under that item two the
[1:42:24] number of short-term rentals with a
[1:42:26] defined block of subdivision shall not
[1:42:27] exceed 10%. Um just curious where you
[1:42:31] got that number and kind of how that in
[1:42:34] your mind how that would work. So
[1:42:36] density traditionally the two methods in
[1:42:39] which you can control that or define it
[1:42:42] is either a percentage of um it on a
[1:42:46] percentage basis um or
[1:42:50] distance. You can define a distance.
[1:42:52] » Sure.
[1:42:53] » So if you think 250 ft right that might
[1:42:56] be only
[1:42:59] three houses away. So every third house
[1:43:02] or every fourth house in your
[1:43:03] neighborhood could be that
[1:43:05] » Or you can we put the language in here
[1:43:08] is that within a defined block of a
[1:43:12] subdivision shall not exceed. Now it
[1:43:14] could be the subdivision. So if you
[1:43:16] think about a subdivision here or an
[1:43:17] addition how it's platted it could have
[1:43:19] 50 homes in that addition. So in that
[1:43:23] addition they couldn't have any more
[1:43:24] than five
[1:43:26] » S strs up to five or it could be
[1:43:29] distance. So, as a starting point, we
[1:43:32] talked about the percentage piece.
[1:43:35] Although percentage is a little bit more
[1:43:36] difficult sometimes to calculate. Um, I
[1:43:39] think the mayor pointed out that if
[1:43:40] there's only three homes in that area
[1:43:43] within that distance,
[1:43:45] » It's Yeah.
[1:43:47] » Now, I don't I don't disagree with
[1:43:48] » It's either distance or percentage. I
[1:43:50] don't disagree with the concept of a
[1:43:52] percentage, but I do, you know, just
[1:43:54] thinking through, you know, a neighbor
[1:43:55] that may have one next to them and then
[1:43:57] all of a sudden they've got two or
[1:43:58] three, but they are inside the
[1:43:59] percentage. I think that a a twoprong
[1:44:03] approach to that makes a lot of sense to
[1:44:05] me because it would avoid
[1:44:08] going over a total percentage and it
[1:44:10] would also avoid three or four being
[1:44:11] right next to each other, right next to
[1:44:13] a person that really doesn't really
[1:44:15] doesn't like that. Um, and again, like
[1:44:17] that's just kind of a concept in my mind
[1:44:19] that I've and I don't know what the
[1:44:20] right number is. The 200 feet seems, you
[1:44:22] know, like you said, that's probably a
[1:44:23] couple at least a couple homes in most
[1:44:25] neighborhoods. Um, I don't know if
[1:44:27] that's the right number, but I do like
[1:44:28] the two-prong approach to it. Um, it is
[1:44:32] kind of wild thinking about it, though.
[1:44:33] I mean, in in our neighborhood, 140
[1:44:36] homes could have up to 14. Uh, will we
[1:44:39] ever see that? Probably not. But that's
[1:44:41] a lot. That's a that's a big number. um
[1:44:44] in the neighborhood I live in. So, I'm
[1:44:46] just trying to visualize how many there
[1:44:48] actually would be, what the density
[1:44:50] would feel like and all that stuff as we
[1:44:52] think through that. But, I like the
[1:44:53] two-prongong approach because I think it
[1:44:54] solves some of that
[1:44:55] » Related to the percentage and the
[1:44:57] separation by distance. Okay. Yep.
[1:44:59] » And you're recommending at least to
[1:45:01] start a 250
[1:45:03] » Distance. I don't mind the 200 feet. I
[1:45:05] think you put in I think item seven or
[1:45:08] number seven item C in that same section
[1:45:10] has
[1:45:11] » If multiple applications are received
[1:45:13] for locations within 200 feet than the
[1:45:15] first application received. So that's
[1:45:17] kind of minimizing how often they can be
[1:45:20] I I don't know that 200 sounds fine to
[1:45:22] me. I don't know if anybody has an
[1:45:23] opinion, but uh I just wanted to state I
[1:45:26] like the two-prong approach because I
[1:45:27] could see that solving, you know, too
[1:45:29] many of them getting right next to each
[1:45:30] other, but still being under, you know,
[1:45:33] a total total density cap that you're
[1:45:35] » I think the distance is a good is a good
[1:45:37] measure, but I don't know what the right
[1:45:39] distance is.
[1:45:40] » I don't know either.
[1:45:41] » I think what I'll do the next tight
[1:45:43] » I think what I'll do is
[1:45:44] » Some neighborhoods that might be too
[1:45:45] far. take your I'll just take your
[1:45:46] neighborhood since you mentioned it and
[1:45:48] look and see what 250 ft distance
[1:45:50] » Because it's a typical lot size
[1:45:52] neighborhood. Okay.
[1:45:54] » Yeah, it's tough. I mean cuz some
[1:45:56] depending on the lot size that could
[1:45:58] between you it could matter.
[1:46:00] » Yeah, your your lot covers 500 feet,
[1:46:02] doesn't it, Tyler?
[1:46:03] » Mine's mine. So that's the thing. Mine
[1:46:05] personally, which I'm not I'm not really
[1:46:07] thinking about using my home as a STR,
[1:46:09] but it's 300 feet on the frontage and
[1:46:11] it's like less than 200 on the back.
[1:46:14] Yeah.
[1:46:14] » So, I mean, obviously it depends on how
[1:46:15] you measure it right in the individual
[1:46:17] property pin
[1:46:19] » Where where it would come from. If it's
[1:46:20] the front, if it's the back, if it's the
[1:46:22] side,
[1:46:23] » It's the distance between you and the
[1:46:25] neighbor next door. So, it wouldn't be
[1:46:26] front or back. It would necessar it
[1:46:28] might like be calculated side by side,
[1:46:30] but
[1:46:30] » Right.
[1:46:30] » We'll let you come up.
[1:46:32] » No, I'm not I'm trying to suggest how to
[1:46:34] do that. It obviously could be measured
[1:46:35] quite a few ways.
[1:46:36] » Okay.
[1:46:37] » Okay. Thank you.
[1:46:40] Okay. Is there any other items sections
[1:46:43] that you wanted to talk about, Tyler,
[1:46:44] and we'll move on to other city council
[1:46:46] members, see what they want to talk
[1:46:48] about?
[1:46:48] » Well, I mean, feel free to chime. I'm
[1:46:50] trying to leave space for everybody to
[1:46:51] chime in. So, hopefully we have some
[1:46:52] consensus. That's what getting this done
[1:46:55] is going to take, just going line by
[1:46:57] line. And
[1:46:58] um
[1:47:00] I don't know. I guess we could talk
[1:47:01] about it. I mean, I mentioned it was
[1:47:03] really well written. item uh W on page
[1:47:06] 819, which is the overnight guest
[1:47:08] occupancy and bedroom definition. I
[1:47:10] mean, really detailed, really well
[1:47:12] written up. It's essentially defines
[1:47:14] what a legal bedroom is, which is the
[1:47:16] case in every home. Um, when you certify
[1:47:18] it for bedrooms occupancy wise, it's
[1:47:21] suggesting two guests per bedroom plus
[1:47:24] three additional persons. Um, so, you
[1:47:27] know, I guess we could kind of chat if
[1:47:29] we feel like that's the right number.
[1:47:32] Um, you know, I said earlier just some
[1:47:34] examples of what that would look like on
[1:47:36] a four or fivebedroom home, but uh it
[1:47:39] feels like that number is probably about
[1:47:41] right, but if somebody, you know,
[1:47:43] disagrees, then we can decide if we want
[1:47:45] to make that a different number.
[1:47:50] I I like the number in conjunction with
[1:47:53] the parking spaces per bedroom. I think
[1:47:57] that's a great um
[1:48:01] yeah, those work well together. I think
[1:48:03] that's a great idea.
[1:48:06] » There is a there is on if you look at
[1:48:08] number seven of that section, um that
[1:48:12] information also makes it clear that
[1:48:16] because what happens is in a lot of the
[1:48:18] bedrooms, they'll put three sets of bunk
[1:48:20] beds in there
[1:48:21] » Thinking they can get six people per
[1:48:23] room. So it's kind of on the front end,
[1:48:25] no more than two persons per and even if
[1:48:28] you're using futons and bunk beds and
[1:48:30] all those kinds of things, it doesn't
[1:48:31] increase your occupancy or capacity or
[1:48:33] your real. So that was a little unique
[1:48:35] language that we had not included in
[1:48:37] there before, but probably thought it
[1:48:38] was valuable.
[1:48:39] » Yeah. really I liked how you did the
[1:48:41] overnight occupancy and additional three
[1:48:44] for the whole unit because there are a
[1:48:46] lot of Airbnbs that do have a futon or
[1:48:48] we just don't want it to get excessive
[1:48:49] to the point where we've got 12 cars
[1:48:52] showing up here, you know, kind of
[1:48:53] thing. So, that's good. Uh I can't
[1:48:56] remember where it was, Paula. It was
[1:48:57] related to occupancy, but somewhere I
[1:48:59] read a definition of because there's an
[1:49:01] overnight guest or overnight occupancy
[1:49:04] and then somewhere later I remember
[1:49:06] reading something about daytime
[1:49:08] occupancy and I'm not recalling where
[1:49:10] that came from. Maybe it was in the
[1:49:12] events section. I don't know.
[1:49:13] » It was in the gathering section.
[1:49:15] » Was it?
[1:49:15] » I don't I I think if we get rid of the
[1:49:18] and that's why I put that note. If we
[1:49:19] get rid of the guest event venue, we
[1:49:22] should try to decide here. Do we put a
[1:49:27] daytime occupancy number maximum because
[1:49:30] people will still have people come over
[1:49:32] when they rent a STR, right? And they
[1:49:34] it's up to three additional persons for
[1:49:38] the unit as a whole to stay the night or
[1:49:41] do we want to make any sort of addition
[1:49:43] to what a daytime occupancy would be or
[1:49:46] do we just leave it at this number and
[1:49:48] adjust it just to give some more room?
[1:49:51] That would be my only suggestion. And if
[1:49:53] we got rid of that, how do we manage
[1:49:54] that here?
[1:49:55] » When our first discussion happened, I
[1:49:57] think the initial um short-term rental
[1:50:00] property owner came and said, "I started
[1:50:04] this because of hoops and they have
[1:50:06] basketball tournaments." And the person
[1:50:08] who rents the home or the parents or
[1:50:10] whoever goes in on it, right, could
[1:50:11] legally based on our definition have 15
[1:50:14] people stay overnight. But he said there
[1:50:17] might be more that come over during the
[1:50:19] day in between basketball games to swim,
[1:50:22] to hang out, to order pizza. So you
[1:50:25] might want to and we might want to look
[1:50:27] at some language that allows for
[1:50:30] um
[1:50:32] additional people to be there but not
[1:50:34] stay there, I think, is what you're
[1:50:35] asking. I just don't have those numbers
[1:50:38] in a language, but I can probably
[1:50:40] present something if that's the
[1:50:41] direction you'd like me to go.
[1:50:43] » I think that's appropriate to do. Yeah,
[1:50:45] I think we should do something like
[1:50:46] that.
[1:50:47] » I mean, it's difficult, right? Because
[1:50:49] it does still bring up the total number
[1:50:50] of people and the total parking
[1:50:52] requirement because if guests come over,
[1:50:54] just like anybody's house, whether it's
[1:50:56] short-term rental or not, when you have
[1:50:57] guests come over, your driveway starts
[1:51:00] filling up, right? Or the parking on the
[1:51:03] street for that four hours that you're
[1:51:06] having them over
[1:51:08] um does become a little bit of an
[1:51:10] inconvenience for other people if you
[1:51:12] don't handle that right. um even if
[1:51:14] you're legally parking. So, I don't
[1:51:16] know. There's some thought in my mind
[1:51:18] that maybe maybe that's just too much
[1:51:21] and maybe we should just decide on
[1:51:23] what's the extra guest allowance and
[1:51:25] make it more simple than having a
[1:51:26] daytime and evening time.
[1:51:28] » But I would say also I come from a very
[1:51:31] large family and one holiday event meant
[1:51:35] sometimes 40 people being at my house,
[1:51:37] right? I don't have 40 parking spaces on
[1:51:39] my driveway and they were parked along
[1:51:41] the street during the daytime hours, but
[1:51:43] they weren't spending the night. So, I
[1:51:44] think that there is probably a
[1:51:46] differentiation about
[1:51:48] » Yes, they can park, but can we allow
[1:51:50] them? And we do we want somebody calling
[1:51:53] and saying, "Hey, they're having a big
[1:51:54] party over here." Well, they can. They
[1:51:56] just can't have 45 people stay in the
[1:51:58] night, right? In sleeping bags all over
[1:52:01] the floor. So, let me just see if I can
[1:52:03] find some draft language that might help
[1:52:05] answer that question and see then if
[1:52:07] it's necessary because it's not in here
[1:52:09] now. Yeah.
[1:52:09] » Okay.
[1:52:10] » No, I agree. I think that would be good.
[1:52:11] I mean, if we don't have events at
[1:52:13] parties, which we don't want, we do have
[1:52:15] to have some some sort of way of
[1:52:18] handling that here on a total persons at
[1:52:21] the house at one time. I think that
[1:52:23] makes a lot of sense. It just I don't
[1:52:24] know what the number should be. Well,
[1:52:26] and and you can also say I mean in the
[1:52:30] gathering and events section, even
[1:52:32] though um we don't want that section,
[1:52:34] there is some language that can help
[1:52:36] prompt this conversation, right? Option
[1:52:38] one alone says gatherings of persons
[1:52:40] shall not exceed two times the maximum
[1:52:43] overnight occupancy or 25 guests.
[1:52:45] » Gotcha.
[1:52:46] » During the day, it may not exceed three
[1:52:48] times the maximum maximum occupancy,
[1:52:51] which allows 35 people in a home, right?
[1:52:53] And then they have to go home and they
[1:52:54] can't sleep there. So there might be
[1:52:55] some language that might help satisfy
[1:52:57] that because that would be considered a
[1:52:59] gathering.
[1:53:00] » Yeah.
[1:53:00] » I mean 45 people is a lot of people.
[1:53:02] That's
[1:53:03] » We'll look forward to your
[1:53:04] recommendations which find
[1:53:06] » We'll work on some language.
[1:53:08] » I think that was the main things I had.
[1:53:09] I have other notes and I can send those
[1:53:11] to Paul that are more wordsmith stuff
[1:53:13] and stuff like those are the bigger ones
[1:53:15] that I saw.
[1:53:16] » Thank you.
[1:53:17] » Yep. Um,
[1:53:19] my only big comment, I've got 28
[1:53:24] questions or things here, but the only
[1:53:26] big thing in here is I saw a significant
[1:53:29] inconsistency from getting the permit
[1:53:33] and the appeal process, but you've
[1:53:35] already discussed that. You already
[1:53:37] recognize that issue. So, I'm just want
[1:53:40] to re-emphasize, be careful about that
[1:53:42] because if we have to give notice to
[1:53:45] people, that's a $500 check right there
[1:53:48] minimum to go do that research to get
[1:53:51] the title companies to tell us who those
[1:53:53] people are we have to give notice to and
[1:53:54] all that stuff. And as you know, it's a
[1:53:57] it's a it can be an involved process.
[1:53:59] So, um
[1:54:02] I don't want us to try to push that
[1:54:04] issue. I'd like to avoid that if we can.
[1:54:07] I don't know what the right way to get
[1:54:08] around it is, but I would like to avoid
[1:54:11] that if we can because it's just doesn't
[1:54:13] it seems overly burdensome to me to to
[1:54:15] require that. So, um, but other members,
[1:54:20] council members have any other things
[1:54:21] they want to bring up, burning issues to
[1:54:24] them,
[1:54:25] » Mr. Mayor,
[1:54:26] » Mr. Macintosh,
[1:54:27] » I had just just one more uh in section S
[1:54:31] about pets.
[1:54:34] Um, if I scroll back to it,
[1:54:39] » You said S
[1:54:40] » S as in Sam.
[1:54:42] » Yes.
[1:54:43] » Uh, the pets section.
[1:54:44] » Yes.
[1:54:45] » A lot of this seemed to be a
[1:54:48] regurgitation of ordinances we already
[1:54:51] have in place concerning pets.
[1:54:53] » Yes.
[1:54:54] » Should we just reference our existing
[1:54:57] pet ordinance? Um, as I said at the top
[1:55:01] of the almost hour, yes, there these
[1:55:04] were mentioned. I put them in here, but
[1:55:07] understand that we do probably have some
[1:55:09] other regulations that might govern
[1:55:11] that. A lot of our animal control uh
[1:55:15] type of issues are managed by Cedric
[1:55:17] County by contract. So, I need to look
[1:55:19] and see what we have, what we don't
[1:55:21] have, what they're enforcing, what
[1:55:22] they're not, and see if it makes sense.
[1:55:24] And it could be that some of these just
[1:55:26] are part of the good neighbor policies
[1:55:28] that says follow the codes but
[1:55:30] understand that you need to have your
[1:55:31] pet on a leash or whatever because it's
[1:55:33] going to be hard for them to a person
[1:55:35] renting. I wouldn't I may now now that
[1:55:38] I'm a community development director I
[1:55:40] may rent my next house and go look at
[1:55:41] all their zoning codes make sure I'm in
[1:55:43] compliance but uh they most likely they
[1:55:46] wouldn't know. So unless we're kind of
[1:55:47] giving them some guidance. Yes. So, uh,
[1:55:50] you're right. There there might be some
[1:55:52] other governing that might correct all
[1:55:54] this or or take this into account.
[1:55:56] » Okay. Yeah. And I like that suggestion.
[1:55:58] Maybe put a couple bullet points in the
[1:56:00] good neighbor guidelines that are to be
[1:56:02] posted to the guest.
[1:56:03] » Sure.
[1:56:03] » Um, yeah. Just to kind of condense this
[1:56:07] a little bit.
[1:56:08] » Absolutely.
[1:56:11] » Miss Hamburg, did you have something?
[1:56:13] » I just had a couple of quick items. Just
[1:56:15] big picture thing. you're seeing this as
[1:56:18] complaint driven. Like you're not going
[1:56:20] to stare at Airbnb sites and be like,
[1:56:22] "Oh, I noticed that they they've had
[1:56:24] this up for 6 months instead of three
[1:56:25] months."
[1:56:26] » Yeah. You just your time doesn't even
[1:56:27] allow that.
[1:56:28] » No.
[1:56:29] » The big picture ideas here is to kind of
[1:56:31] have a a stick if you've got a repeat
[1:56:33] offender that's causing problems. So, um
[1:56:36] just along those lines of maybe getting
[1:56:39] too detailed, but still leaving our
[1:56:41] ability to deal with problems.
[1:56:43] » Sure. uh section P, you know, where it
[1:56:47] says uh
[1:56:50] » Trash collection.
[1:56:51] » Number two,
[1:56:52] » You you might require that they they
[1:56:54] show that they have trash service. Well,
[1:56:56] the big deal is is you don't want trash
[1:56:58] piling up and you don't want them using
[1:57:00] the neighbor's trash can. Correct.
[1:57:01] » So, that seems like overkill, but it
[1:57:04] might be a way to deal with them if it
[1:57:07] becomes an issue and to have a path to
[1:57:09] deal with them. Correct.
[1:57:10] » Correct.
[1:57:10] » Yeah. and or it might be that it might
[1:57:14] fit in another
[1:57:16] » Section. I just we just talked about
[1:57:19] making because we had a complaint that
[1:57:21] said they were putting trash and they
[1:57:22] hadn't picked up their trash in days and
[1:57:25] a week after somebody left and they were
[1:57:27] just piling it on the ground. And so we
[1:57:29] were just trying to consider what all
[1:57:31] needs to be in there. And like I said,
[1:57:34] these sections will be modified if
[1:57:35] there's places in the code that are
[1:57:37] accurately reflecting what we want. If
[1:57:38] they aren't, then we're gonna put them
[1:57:40] in here.
[1:57:41] » Yeah.
[1:57:41] » Correct.
[1:57:42] » Okay. And then same goes for like uh
[1:57:44] section Q with the lighting about the
[1:57:46] porch being on overnight. Like I think,
[1:57:49] you know, you can pull something like
[1:57:50] that out, but again, you kind of need to
[1:57:52] write a number of things because you
[1:57:53] can't predict every situation that's
[1:57:55] going to bug your neighbor and actually
[1:57:56] be a long-term problem. So,
[1:57:57] » I think that we're we're going to modify
[1:57:59] that lighting section in the sense that
[1:58:01] we have a lot of people who we don't
[1:58:03] want them to put the big lights up in
[1:58:05] the backyard so they can swim all hours
[1:58:06] of the night, right? or light pollution
[1:58:08] and we just want to make sure that we're
[1:58:10] mindful of that. We have a whole
[1:58:11] lighting uh section. We just want to
[1:58:14] make sure that we're considering what
[1:58:16] might happen in STR which is now
[1:58:18] currently not in considered in our
[1:58:20] existing codes.
[1:58:22] » Okay. Thank you.
[1:58:24] » Mr. Mayor, just a clarification. Do you
[1:58:26] think quiet hours will solve a lot of
[1:58:28] the issues that you kind of just
[1:58:30] described?
[1:58:32] » Oh my goodness, that's a tough question.
[1:58:34] Um, we I mean right now neighbors have
[1:58:37] the right to call the police if there's
[1:58:38] some concern about noise at certain
[1:58:40] hours, right? So, I think it is a good
[1:58:43] neighbor policy for sure and a reminder
[1:58:45] that says, "Please post this because we
[1:58:48] don't want the STR renters assuming that
[1:58:51] they can go all night if they want to."
[1:58:54] Um, they don't know what they don't
[1:58:55] know. And so if we can request them to
[1:58:58] create some written posted whatever
[1:59:02] policy to let them know, then when
[1:59:04] somebody shows up at the door and says,
[1:59:05] um, it's 2 o'clock in the morning,
[1:59:07] you're supposed to shut this down,
[1:59:09] right? Then they know they they should
[1:59:12] have known some way. So some of these
[1:59:14] will fit nicely into the good neighbor
[1:59:16] requirement posting. I'd like to say
[1:59:18] that people don't know what they don't
[1:59:20] know, but if they do know it, they
[1:59:21] better follow it and then we have a
[1:59:23] little bit better opportunity to talk to
[1:59:24] the property owner after the fact.
[1:59:26] » Yeah. No, that makes sense.
[1:59:29] » Mr. Mayor, I did have one more item I
[1:59:31] found since unless anybody else has
[1:59:33] something to bring up. Um I did look at
[1:59:35] the AA section for appeals of short-term
[1:59:38] rental decisions. Um page 27 is where it
[1:59:40] started. Um, and just kind of reading
[1:59:43] through it looks like, so for instance,
[1:59:45] uh, B under administrative appeal, the
[1:59:48] appeal shall include, and there's a
[1:59:49] laundry list there, but it looks to me
[1:59:51] like you're following the zoning, the
[1:59:53] 200 feet of the area proposed and the
[1:59:55] 10,00 requirement is just straight out
[1:59:57] of what we have to do on zoning cases,
[1:59:59] which is great. I think that's perfect.
[2:00:01] Uh, the next page, item
[2:00:04] D for protest petition. This one got me
[2:00:07] going, got me just thinking a little bit
[2:00:09] of how how this is going to turn from an
[2:00:12] administrative process into a planning
[2:00:14] process very quickly if we don't decide
[2:00:17] on this. And what I mean by that is the
[2:00:19] protest petition um percentage at 20%.
[2:00:23] So if if there was 10 neighbors near
[2:00:25] your uh STR, two only two would have to
[2:00:28] say, "Nope, just don't want an STR next
[2:00:30] to me. Nope, just don't want it. I don't
[2:00:32] care what property rights they want." I
[2:00:35] have a problem with 20%. Seems way too
[2:00:37] low. I know where it comes from. I read
[2:00:39] the it's from the can the c the Kansas
[2:00:41] state statute where if you're have a
[2:00:43] zoning uh protest petition process, it
[2:00:47] it requires a supermajority vote of the
[2:00:49] governing body. I think that's where
[2:00:51] that's pulled from. In this case, I
[2:00:54] think the protest petition should be
[2:00:56] much higher because what you're asking
[2:00:57] is, hey neighborhood, do you really have
[2:00:59] a problem with this? And to me, 20% is
[2:01:01] not the neighborhood having a problem
[2:01:02] with this. 40 or 50% is and at this
[2:01:06] point you're not denying anything.
[2:01:07] You're just requiring another step which
[2:01:09] is then what I what I read is the
[2:01:11] planning commission turns into the
[2:01:13] appeals the final say in the matters.
[2:01:16] Right. So they go through a typical
[2:01:17] zoning process with the um planning
[2:01:20] commission. Correct.
[2:01:21] » Well that at at the top of the hour um I
[2:01:24] said I also said that this is a little
[2:01:27] bit messier. We're gonna have to
[2:01:28] uncouple some things. So, let me just be
[2:01:30] fair and say
[2:01:32] um the application would come to me and
[2:01:36] if they meet all the requirements, I
[2:01:38] approve it. If for some reason I deny
[2:01:41] it, we allow the applicant to file the
[2:01:45] appeal. Right? So, the appeal we're
[2:01:48] trying to mimic and see what that flow
[2:01:50] will be and we will lo we will probably
[2:01:53] pretty closely follow the process for
[2:01:55] any appeal that we would have. Okay. The
[2:01:58] other problem that we have is and we had
[2:02:00] a lot of discussion and this is the
[2:02:02] other messy piece of it is that when I
[2:02:04] receive an application to review it
[2:02:06] » Right
[2:02:06] » For approval or denial and they do meet
[2:02:09] all the expectations
[2:02:11] there's no mechanism that allows or
[2:02:13] provides for the uh neighbors to know
[2:02:16] that this is even going to happen. So I
[2:02:19] have a two-prong problem. What am I
[2:02:21] going to do when I get the application
[2:02:22] to notify neighbors if I need to? And
[2:02:25] what is that burden on them to submit a
[2:02:29] petition or protest, whatever it is, or
[2:02:31] notification? And if I do get uh
[2:02:37] complaints about an STR going in next
[2:02:40] door to the property owners, what do I
[2:02:43] do with it? Is that a condition to deny?
[2:02:46] Right? So, that's one area. If I deny it
[2:02:49] and the applicant doesn't agree with
[2:02:51] that, then I my intent is to follow the
[2:02:54] appropriate appeal process. Now the
[2:02:57] question really becomes does it start
[2:02:59] and stop with the planning commission or
[2:03:01] does it follow the normal process of any
[2:03:04] other which would be planning commission
[2:03:07] makes recommendation to city council,
[2:03:09] city council reviews it. Right? So those
[2:03:11] are the nuances that we're still trying
[2:03:12] to work out. So, um
[2:03:16] um with that being said, I think we'll
[2:03:18] have a clearer, that's a technical word,
[2:03:21] picture of how this process will work as
[2:03:24] we give it some additional thought,
[2:03:26] right? Because when this whole thing
[2:03:27] started, your your question was is that
[2:03:29] I was going to hold the public hearing
[2:03:32] and I can't do that. And the only way
[2:03:34] that I could is if the applicant for the
[2:03:37] STR provides me and pays for the
[2:03:39] ownership list. I notify like we
[2:03:42] normally do, right?
[2:03:43] » And then there's a waiting period of the
[2:03:45] 20 days so that people know what's
[2:03:47] happening. But then where are they going
[2:03:48] to go?
[2:03:50] » I I'm not going to be the administrative
[2:03:52] hearing officer deciding whether this
[2:03:55] goes through or not. Right? So those are
[2:03:56] the difficulties um that we have to sort
[2:03:59] of figure out how to
[2:04:01] » Put the appropriate process with the
[2:04:03] appropriate intent. My thing is is that
[2:04:06] if they approve if they meet all the
[2:04:08] requirements that you all have set out
[2:04:10] then I'm going to approve it. If they
[2:04:12] don't then what? And then we're going to
[2:04:16] be hearing from neighbors who said
[2:04:18] nobody ever told us that that
[2:04:20] application was filed and that you
[2:04:21] approved it. Well our code doesn't
[2:04:23] require that. So there's a lot of work
[2:04:25] to be done in that area.
[2:04:28] U we just put the placeholders in there
[2:04:30] because we'd had quite a discussion
[2:04:31] about it previously.
[2:04:33] » Yeah, I I agree with your earlier
[2:04:35] comment that there needs to be some work
[2:04:37] on that.
[2:04:38] » Oh, a lot of work. Let's
[2:04:40] » Pull out.
[2:04:41] » Let's give you a chance to do that and
[2:04:42] and then absolutely can consider what
[2:04:44] what it is. So, I I appreciate that you
[2:04:46] have some comments, but I think that
[2:04:48] it's going to drastically change in this
[2:04:50] area as we start trying to figure out um
[2:04:53] how best to put this through if somebody
[2:04:55] has a issue or complaint or appeal.
[2:04:58] » Okay,
[2:04:59] gotcha. Yep. Nope, that makes sense. And
[2:05:01] I think it'd be helpful to do some more
[2:05:04] research, see what other jurisdictions
[2:05:05] do as far as notifications if if they're
[2:05:08] legally required or not. Some probably
[2:05:11] choose to to post notice somehow or some
[2:05:13] way even if they aren't going to have a
[2:05:15] public hearing. So, nope. That's the
[2:05:17] only other major one I I missed.
[2:05:20] » Mr. Proctor, did you have any sections
[2:05:22] you wanted to discuss?
[2:05:24] » I think the sections I I was maybe a
[2:05:27] little concerned about. We've talked
[2:05:28] about and then um I think you me
[2:05:31] mentioned the discrepancy between like
[2:05:33] the two years and one year, but I kind
[2:05:35] of figured that'd get worked out before
[2:05:36] this is all done anyways.
[2:05:37] » Okay, good. Thank you, Mr. David. Did
[2:05:41] you have any other sections you want to
[2:05:42] talk about?
[2:05:43] » No addition. Just the the general
[2:05:44] consensus that less is more. So, if we
[2:05:47] can condense it and
[2:05:48] » Get rid of things, reference things that
[2:05:51] that don't need to be repeated, that all
[2:05:53] be
[2:05:54] » Improvement. Thanks,
[2:05:55] » Miss Hamburg. Are you satisfied with
[2:05:58] anything? Okay.
[2:06:00] » Okay. So, I guess we've uh pretty much
[2:06:02] covered everything and appreciate all
[2:06:04] the input.
[2:06:05] » Rage, can I make two comments that'll be
[2:06:07] short? I know, I know, but I I just have
[2:06:09] to get this from this conversation. So,
[2:06:13] as you can tell, we're going to spend
[2:06:14] the next three workshops talking about
[2:06:16] codes. And we have this that's
[2:06:20] related that Paula talked about. We also
[2:06:23] have a Senate bill out there that we're
[2:06:26] going to talk about in conjunction. Mhm.
[2:06:28] » So, kind of the the broad plan of staff
[2:06:31] is to make all three of these crescendo
[2:06:35] » Into one.
[2:06:37] There'll be different votes, but as far
[2:06:40] as timing goes, and I I know we were
[2:06:42] looking at fall of this year, and we
[2:06:45] will continue to push, we're dedicating
[2:06:48] all of our workshops to the end of the
[2:06:50] year to zoning matters. Um, so I just
[2:06:53] want to be clear that um, we're we're
[2:06:56] going to work on this as much as we can,
[2:06:58] but it might be tied to some of the
[2:07:01] zoning codes that we're going to discuss
[2:07:02] over the next three workshops. So, I
[2:07:05] just want to be clear on that. The other
[2:07:07] hard part, um, and you know, the
[2:07:11] planning commission makes the
[2:07:12] recommendation and and the council
[2:07:14] approves this matter. Um,
[2:07:18] a lot of times we talk have these
[2:07:20] conversations about big policy and it
[2:07:22] doesn't involve the planning commission.
[2:07:24] I was at the planning commission meeting
[2:07:25] and we presented this and I think a lot
[2:07:28] of them said, "Hey, can we get it in
[2:07:29] word version and make our markups and
[2:07:31] send it to Paula?" Essentially, what
[2:07:33] that does to my staff is sends almost 12
[2:07:37] different versions of the same document
[2:07:39] to one person. And I understand
[2:07:42] um she she can she can navigate those
[2:07:45] waters, but it might be good to think as
[2:07:48] we move to our next workshop of what
[2:07:50] what recommendation you would like from
[2:07:52] the planning commission. Do you want
[2:07:53] them to completely dive themselves into
[2:07:56] this and and and get word by word what
[2:08:00] they want? I I just feel like we owe it
[2:08:02] to the planning commission of, you know,
[2:08:04] h how deep do you want them to go in
[2:08:06] this process? because we're going to go
[2:08:07] really deep this group and if they go
[2:08:09] really deep it's going to be even
[2:08:12] tougher on Paula. So I I don't know if
[2:08:14] I've properly asked this question but I
[2:08:16] would like some guidance to give to our
[2:08:18] » I think I understand your question about
[2:08:19] what my question is what process do you
[2:08:23] think would work best for you
[2:08:25] » Because you're going to get input from
[2:08:26] seven planning commission people and
[2:08:29] from six governing body people. That's a
[2:08:32] big team.
[2:08:33] » It's a huge team. So, up to this point,
[2:08:36] we've workshopped only with you. I
[2:08:39] introduced it because we know that any
[2:08:41] change to the zoning regulations has to
[2:08:42] go through the planning commission. Um,
[2:08:45] I like receiving feedback on a very big
[2:08:49] umbrella. I do not want to spend
[2:08:52] workshop time of anybody's time
[2:08:55] completely word by word going through
[2:08:57] this document and word.
[2:09:00] » Thank you. Because I don't either. Um,
[2:09:02] so I'd like I I mean the in all honesty,
[2:09:05] he didn't say this either, but the
[2:09:07] planning commission requested to have a
[2:09:09] workshop space on their own meetings
[2:09:12] with PEC to talk about all these things
[2:09:15] so they can tell
[2:09:17] um um
[2:09:21] staff PEC what to include in this these
[2:09:24] codes.
[2:09:25] » Okay. So, we said, "No, we're going to
[2:09:27] have joint commission and council
[2:09:29] because um what did we say?" Right? The
[2:09:32] odds are you have to have three votes.
[2:09:34] And so, the thing is is if you're
[2:09:36] rewriting everything and it has nothing
[2:09:38] to do with where the council's direction
[2:09:40] is, who the ultimate governing body for
[2:09:42] approval, um I'm just spinning my
[2:09:44] wheels, right? So, we're not going to
[2:09:46] have any separate, but be prepared that
[2:09:49] from a from the zoning code perspective,
[2:09:50] they're going to come to these workshops
[2:09:52] with a whole laundry list of things they
[2:09:54] think should be included. Um, from the
[2:09:56] STR, they want to look at the document
[2:09:59] and provide guidance. I'm willing to
[2:10:02] take big picture guidance, but not
[2:10:05] rewriting. I'm also not necessarily
[2:10:08] willing to have additional workshops
[2:10:10] just with them. I'd rather bring the
[2:10:12] suggestions back to you all to see what
[2:10:14] fits and what doesn't. Um, and then
[2:10:18] ultimately when the document is defined,
[2:10:20] then we can bring it back through
[2:10:21] planning commission for approval based
[2:10:22] on your recommendations and then move to
[2:10:24] you. So, it's really messy right now.
[2:10:27] Um, and I we'll give some more thought
[2:10:29] to it about what we're going to do, but
[2:10:31] um I just wanted you all to be prepared
[2:10:33] that at most of the the uh zoning code
[2:10:36] update workshops, they have a lot of
[2:10:38] ideas about what they want to see in the
[2:10:40] codes.
[2:10:41] I'm not enamored with the idea of giving
[2:10:43] them the word document and having them
[2:10:44] come back with the changes because I
[2:10:46] could just see that as a huge
[2:10:49] » Pro.
[2:10:49] » It will and it hasn't they requested it
[2:10:51] hasn't been provided. I let them know
[2:10:52] that we were going to be talking to
[2:10:54] council tonight.
[2:10:55] » I mean and and council members please
[2:10:57] speak up if you have any input on that.
[2:10:59] But I just I can just see that just
[2:11:01] being a a horrible burden on her if we
[2:11:05] did that.
[2:11:07] » Mr. Mayor,
[2:11:08] » Mr. McDuck. Uh um I I agree with the
[2:11:12] general sentiment that yeah, if somebody
[2:11:15] gets in there and words smmiths this
[2:11:17] preliminary document, it it just get
[2:11:20] ginormous.
[2:11:22] something that works well in the the
[2:11:24] business that I'm in. Um, we use
[2:11:26] Microsoft 365,
[2:11:29] you can share a review only copy of a
[2:11:34] document
[2:11:35] to allow individuals if they want to
[2:11:38] spend six hours on a document
[2:11:41] reviewing and making comments, but you
[2:11:43] can't actually change the content of the
[2:11:45] document. You can make suggestions that
[2:11:47] are really easy to implement if they're
[2:11:49] good suggestions.
[2:11:51] Um, and they're super quick to review.
[2:11:55] Um, I think some of the input we might
[2:11:58] get from individuals who want to go
[2:12:00] through and spend a lot of time on this
[2:12:02] could be very valuable
[2:12:04] » And we should provide them the
[2:12:06] opportunity to provide that value.
[2:12:09] Um, maybe the right approach is a review
[2:12:12] only version
[2:12:15] of a shared document. Everybody's in the
[2:12:18] same document at the same time. leaving
[2:12:20] comments in the same document.
[2:12:24] Um, if that if you think that would be a
[2:12:26] good idea, that'd be my suggestion. Um,
[2:12:29] but I'll go back to the mayor's comment.
[2:12:31] Whatever is going to be easiest for you,
[2:12:33] Paula, I think is the right approach
[2:12:35] because ultimately
[2:12:36] » And I want to make sure that you if we
[2:12:38] one thing we talked about related to the
[2:12:40] shared document was are we violating the
[2:12:42] the open meetings by them getting into
[2:12:45] the document and exchanging stuff all
[2:12:47] the time because they're going to be
[2:12:48] able to see each other's comments. They
[2:12:50] may be able to put comments in there
[2:12:52] that says, "Hey, I don't like that, but
[2:12:53] let's do that." So, I did not agree to
[2:12:56] that at the time because it was
[2:12:57] suggested and I was concerned about the
[2:12:59] open meetings and the serial meetings.
[2:13:00] So, I'm not inclined to do that.
[2:13:03] However, I'm not opposed to them
[2:13:05] submitting comments and suggestions
[2:13:08] individually to me, but I want a
[2:13:11] mechanism to bring back to you to say,
[2:13:15] do we want to spend time on that?
[2:13:17] Because they may say, well, they can
[2:13:18] have up to 70 days a year if they're not
[2:13:21] going to rent it. Or they may be able to
[2:13:23] have, why can't they have 20 people in
[2:13:25] there? Maybe they want five people
[2:13:27] maximum, right? So, they're gonna
[2:13:29] they're gonna have some really um
[2:13:32] » Good comments, and they might have some
[2:13:34] comments that you don't agree with, and
[2:13:36] I don't want to spend time developing
[2:13:37] full-blown language, but I want you to
[2:13:39] have the
[2:13:40] » The comments and the feedback somehow so
[2:13:42] you can provide direction about whether
[2:13:44] we should go down a certain path or make
[2:13:46] changes. I think I think a certain
[2:13:47] amount of that is you between you and
[2:13:50] and Ted and Maria need to call the balls
[2:13:53] and strikes on what are you going to
[2:13:54] present to council of those re of those
[2:13:56] suggestions because because like some of
[2:13:59] my suggestions are just little editorial
[2:14:01] stuff. It's not does I don't have to
[2:14:04] update all
[2:14:04] » I expect everybody to to even discuss
[2:14:07] that stuff. It's like okay so what you
[2:14:10] and I don't want you coming back to the
[2:14:12] council and say well should we change
[2:14:13] this from the to a
[2:14:17] » Sense this discussion helps Paul and I
[2:14:19] call those balls and strikes is really
[2:14:21] difficult when we don't have this
[2:14:22] discussion and then absolutely
[2:14:24] » So so I appreciate the short discussion
[2:14:26] on this particular topic and I'm I think
[2:14:28] I I know what the council wants.
[2:14:30] » Thank you.
[2:14:32] » Okay.
[2:14:34] Okay. Any other final statements on this
[2:14:38] short-term rental thing or we ready to
[2:14:40] move on?
[2:14:41] » It wasn't so short.
[2:14:45] » Sorry, dad joke.
[2:14:46] » It was almost a exactly an hour.
[2:14:49] » Yep.
[2:14:50] » Check that.
[2:14:51] » Check that out.
[2:14:51] » What I said.
[2:14:54] Okay. If there are none, we can move to
[2:14:56] adjournment.
[2:14:57] » Mr. Mayor,
[2:14:58] » Mr. Dean,
[2:14:59] » I move we adjourn.
[2:15:01] » Second.
[2:15:02] » Sec. Motion by Mr. Dean, a second by Mr.
[2:15:04] David. All in favor say I.
[2:15:05] » I.
[2:15:06] » Any opposed?
[2:15:08] That motion carries 5 to zero. We are
[2:15:10] adjourned. See everybody in two weeks.
[2:15:13] » September 1st.
[2:15:15] » I also didn't go everyone. I was really