Board of Zoning Adjustment - Special Meeting

battery. I remember

All right. Good morning. Uh thanks for joining us here today. This is the uh work session for the deputy cable planning commission. This is uh December the 11th. Uh, D, would you call the roll, please? Sure. Uh, Ross here. Gary here. Larry Steven here.

Yes. down here. Yes, sir. This person all right to commission here today. And so our discussion today is talk about uh the development of our short-term rentals here today. So, I'm going to turn the video over to Chad and he'll give us sir.

Good morning, planning commissioners. Uh, basically, we're holding a work session, of course, to deal with the short-term rental. We understand in a typical planning commission meeting, we don't have a lot of time to extrapolate that and pull it out and discuss it. So, I I emailed each one of you individually, requested that you send comments or concerns related to the short-term rental, and I compiled a survey. I share that survey with Mr. Bordon only and legal and of course my team. So, today you all will be able to discuss and work through it. The way it's kind of set up is with multiple choices. So, by a show of hands, as Mr. board here lead you all through the discussion. You know, we'll go through each one of them at his lead and then you'll discuss it and then by show of hands for which one that you support. We'll take notes and document everything that you support and and what you have more favor for in terms of different areas. We talk about application concerns, re-registration concerns, parking, um the the nighttime stay, the density, and those sort of topics. And then we also include at the end of the document a mandatory change that we have to make by law, which is that the penalty for not following the ordinance cannot exceed $500. And we've already made that change, and that's the only change that we've made to the ordinance. the rest of the changes that we will make will be the result of what happens today. Thank you.

Okay. So, let's just start down our list here and we're going to start with application concerns. Uh a couple bullet points here that we have to to discuss. Uh applicants should not have to pay the entire application fee if not approved. uh recent requiring a utility bill in the owner's name may be too time consuming if property has has an immediate vacancy or the owner is a management company with multiple properties. Uh so I guess do we have any discussion on either of those topics there that you want to go into? I do.

All right. athletes should not have to pay the entire application fees if not approved. I my my thinking is if you make the application as you make the application you apply. They already have the rules and regulations. They know what the rules and regulations are before they apply. And if they feel like they're qualified, they will apply. And if they apply for the license, whether they're approved or not approved, they do not get the feedback because you've done the processing fees, I it's work to be done in order to do the application. So if they don't feel like they're qualified, they're not going to file for apply for the fee. So I don't think it should be refunded where they're approved. They're not approved. My only comeback on that is there's some objective determinations to be made after they apply that leave room for doubter questions determined on the not everything's black and white. So my thinking was done $100 application fee non-refundable and when approved they pay the remaining $400. The $100 covers the city's cost to do whatever inspections that are required for approval and that's non-refundable. But I think there's just some subjective things that I might think I totally qualify. I paid my $500 and then comes back, oh, you didn't this this doesn't meet our standards or whatever. So,

give them a choice to to make a correction. I mean, if there's something in here they don't understand and they didn't understand, give them a choice to make the correction. Well, and they said amount of time.

That's that's my thinking. Well, my um concern would be that thousand foot radius um going into making the application. They may not know how many other um homes are in that area within that thousand foot radius. So, they may think that they meet all the requirements and then we come back and say, "Well, there's already three applicants within 1,000 ft, so no, you can't have it." So, I don't think they should be penalized.

Right. If I may interject, staff and I have discussed that. Uh Tommy and I were talking about that yesterday. The very first thing we'll do in the process is check the radius and and to determine if they're even eligible to do it based on the policy before they even start the process. And and that'll be the very first thing. So, they wouldn't have to pay anything at that point. we'll start the investigation to see if you know if they can meet the requirements in terms of the area first. That's the very first criteria we'll look at and then from that point it'll go into them providing the paperwork for the mortgage and or the insurance or the deed or what have you and then the inspection. And then even with the inspection when inspectors go out and look at the the home, they'll determine what needs to be improved or fixed so that they can meet the approval. and then they'll be given time to to uh correct that. And so if they if they come in and they go through that process and they see it takes too much to correct it in order for it to be an Airbnb or what have you or a short-term rental, they may leave the process and we've done all this work to get them to that point. So I see it from both perspectives, but the initial thing we'll do is look at the density.

So answer your question, M. Yes. Okay. Could there be two applicants open at the same time within that thousand foot radius? How would that how would we handle that? I mean, if we if we have two people applying, it it's really on a first come first- serve basis. So, it's not just coming to the city, putting in an application, it's actually going all the way through the approval process and getting a stamp saying you're approved. So, once we have an approved person, that's when we we look at the radius. But some of the questions you're asking we're going to work through anyway, including the radius today. So, let's you know, let's let's move along through there.

Would the what would it take to cover the city's expenses? Would the what Larry said the 100 and then the far after cover or So, so right now the city have spoken with Granicus and they're saying it's going to cost us roughly about $20,000 a year to monitor and keep up with it. But as far as that application, if if it was 500 upfront, we think that's covering our cost. Would what's Larry was saying, the 100 up front and then the 400 if you're approved, cover our cost at a at a minimum? Yes. Okay. So, we have determined the $500 fee. We've already determined that. That's one of the questions on there. So,

our first question here as we're coming up if we need to decide that. So, so Chad is, and I don't know if you guys have thought about this, is could you do a pre-application fee for say $100 and then collect the rest of it? Yes, sir. That's part of the survey. As we go through the survey, it'll answer some of the questions based on how you all respond. Okay. And we can I mean um one of the ideas that came out of the concerns and so forth was to do a non-refundable application fee which makes sense because we have some level of work that we'll have to do at the beginning of the process

and then there'll be work that needs to be done on the back side of the process too. So all right so I see that that is number two 2C. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

All right. Uh, Attorney Crease said that we don't have to necessarily go through each one if we feel like we have a general consensus on it. We don't have to go through that process of raising your hand. But, you know, because it's not this isn't a meeting where we haven't done. It's generally that only has happened I think in the past when there's a clear division where we don't know what the consensus is amongst the commission. So this is very looped. It doesn't have to be exactly as it's going to add and flow and change as you all discussed and that's just part of the work session. So it's not like if there's a general consensus we can move to the next. You know what I mean? there are issues that you know there's a division or that's just something that you can kind of

okay discuss well let's let's sort of discuss the charge we do have some some options here 100 250 500 and 750 the commission do you guys have any ladies have any thoughts on these options here and what they have I think we have heard 500 a little bit here this morning. Uh is there anybody wishes to look at something different? 500 I think is the number. Okay.

So everybody sort of in consensus with that 500. Okay. That's sort of what we've discussed here and commission's given a head nod on that one. Okay. Next. The next one. Should application fee be paid before or after approval or require a deposit? And uh we've got sort of a couple of options here uh before or after or application fee non-refundable deposit percent of the approved cost which I'm assuming that we've sort of given the non 500 that's the number that we're talking about here this morning. So so I'll open that up for discussion among the

I like the non-refundable application and the balance when approved. And that's where my idea of a 100 non-refundable and 400 balance would come into play if we use the $500 figure. My first gut was before, but after here I mean until I get used to the ordinance, you know, I think partial up front was better. I'm okay with 100 if it's long enough. It's enough to cover our cost. I I think um it's really not. Our goal is to hope that they're approved. Yeah, of course.

Uh but it's not. So, but you may have a lot of approvals and you may have people that don't get approved. So, it could be extra. It's not considered. So, you think requiring 50% down non-refundable? So you go through the process covers the cost. You guys are going to have to just work through the application and then the balance is there. Excuse me. Everything that we do our site

everything that we bring before you our reszonings, our site plans, these are non-refundable because we do the work. And the same thing is here. We're going to do the work. Our building inspectors are going to go out. We're going to give them a chance to get it corrected. That's what we do. Even with the U site plans, we give them a chance to get conditions met. We just don't say no. So, we're going to work with them to get in compliance. And if we was to do this, break it down into refundable fees and those and that, it'll make it harder on us to manage. And y'all, I know a lot of y'all are worried about that managing process. And so, uh, that'll make it harder on us to manage. It just make it's more clear when we have that flat fee and whatever that flat fee y'all uh approve of and we go with that and it's non-refundable and we we work with you to get you approved.

I agree non-refundable the fee but is it 100 250 all of it I guess is the question. Well, my concern would be, okay, I'm I want to do a short-term rental, and if I have to pay $500 non-refundable to go through all of this, am I just going to say, I'll just take my chances and I'll just do it on my own. I don't have to, you know, I'm just wondering, is that going to deter people and they're still going to have a short-term rental? Yeah. Um I agree with that actually. I feel like if we make them pay all of it up front, you'll have more people trying to navigate around the process. But if if they can come in and at least see if they can do it, so they'll be legally able to do it and get a permit and so forth, they'll probably more likely come in if they know that there's a small application fee and and then have to pay the balance on the back end. I mean, it's a gamble either way we go. realistically. But, you know, I feel like even with the ordinance with a non-refundable application fee, there'll be people that'll navigate it, but then that's where the monitoring comes in. And if we catch them and they have to pay the penalty, we want them to also understand, you may as well come in and do follow the process

instead of being penalized for it. Cuz the penalty is $500. The penalty is $500. So now, for not following the process, it's going to cost them at least 1,000 bucks where if they have followed the process and we have a non-refundable application fee whatever $1250 then that's all they're out of time makes a lot of sense

correct and the other thing too is if you pay $100 you go through the process you meet the density rule if we have one um and then you have to make improvements to your home or your your structure in order be become a short-term rental and you have to spend additional money, we have to keep that into consideration, too. There are people who will elect not to make those improvements and that's a $100 we just get or 250 that we just get. All right.

Okay. We've sort of had some discussion and I guess back to we heard two commissioners mentioned about some partial fees and we sort of didn't hear anything about we charge the the full fee up front. Does anybody else have an opinion or top? I'm okay with probably maybe 50%. This one I'm thinking to 50% I think up front it's I don't see any problem I can be serious applicants right yeah okay

all right so uh so does everybody agree with a 50% application fee and then the 50% remaining on the rem remaining everybody good with that okay that's 50% nonrefundable or application fee. Correct. That's correct.

Okay. Uh the next item, what documents should be required to apply for a short short-term rental? If you agree with each document, then please vote for each one. We've got proof of ownership, a deed or mortgage, proof of insurance in the owner's utility bill, uh, utility bill, or all of the above. So, I'll open that up for discussion among this commission here to give thoughts on that. I think A and half of B.

Not in the own the owner is not going to have utilities if it's currently rented. Yeah. So, I was sort of going to bring up a point about if it's in the utility bill, the owner or the utility. There are a lot of I guess rentals in Decator that people rent. And I'm assuming this don't apply to somebody that's renting a property. Is that right? They can't. It's got to be a owner of a property. Correct. So, so the utility bill would be good because a lot of times or most of the time renters have the utilities in their name

and not a home. Okay. So, go back to your point. Uh Eddie, what did you uh I have a rental property that's in long-term rental now. If we decided to convert it to a short-term rental, I can't do that if it's only based on the whose name the utility bills in. So, I think it should be the ownership or the insurance on the on the building or residence. Okay.

I mean, if not, I'd have to wait till it's empty, change it back to my name, then file the application. So, but you said it's a long-term rental. So, you're you're saying you want your long-term renter to be able to

I like to have the option maybe if they move out to convert it or convert it while they're there and have it approved and if they were to leave be able to use short-term rental. That's a good point because you you may want to do the application while that tenant is still in there because it's the inspections and all, you know, that may take weeks or however long and um you wouldn't want to kick the tenant out thinking that you're going to have a short-term rental and then for whatever reason you can't get a short-term rental. So, it just kind of ties the owner's hands.

Yeah. So I I think it should be the proof of ownership and proof of insurance that you definitely have to have proof of insurance, you know, for liability reasons. I would agree and be minus utility bill. Okay. Any more thoughts on that? I've got a thought. Let me let me ask you this because a lot of these short-term rentals are going to be owned by LLC's. Uh, so we're going to require business license, documentation of that nature. Yeah, that's part of it, too. So, they will be required to get a business license in addition to getting the permit to have a short-term rental.

I think he's asking though if it's an entity that's going to the entity, is it set up as a proper you're asking, is it set up as a proper legal entity to do this? Well, if they have multiple properties, they should be. If it's if it's a average homeowner, it's one property, then that's different. So, we don't want to we don't want to force regular property owners to become a business, right? Absolutely. But if they have multiple properties, cuz that that's a possibility. It should be a a legal business. I think he's just wanted to know if it's an entity that there's an additional Is that what?

Right. So, so if there's if an entity is is business documents proving that it's a legal entity. and to the owner. Yeah. To the res. That that would be necessary. So I I would consider adding that to to the other uh document.

Uh let me I have a question. The short term really has to be on on back to Edd's point still when you after your long-term lease whatever you have in your propert if you want to convert to a short term it still needs you to build this in your name in order to become a short term right

that's what I'm saying so I still need think the propert owner is still need the utility to be in his state cuz you going to end up with a lot of these people not doing what you need to if the if it's the owner owner own their name should be in the utility bill should be in their name that would eliminate a lot of scams cuz it has to be what the owner can only do short has to be the owner So if it's the owner, it will be in their name.

Well, I have a scenario. Suppose I buy my house. It's in my name and I have a husband and his name is not on the mortgage. He's not the owner, but he has the utility bill in his name. Would you please convert your name? you will be a short short-term a lease owner. I mean,

so in in other words, what you're saying is if if I want to do a short-term rental, then I would just need to convert it into my Okay. And we're husband and wife and you know, whatever. So, that shouldn't be a big deal.

Okay. But but I think Eddie's position was if he's got a long-term renter in there. And the long-term renter says, "I'm going to move out. I'm moving jobs uh January 1." And he says, "Okay, I know that he's giving me notice. I want to convert it to a short-term rental for 6 months after he leaves." That bill not being in your name until January 1st would prohibit you from signing up and getting application and getting checked out and everything for a short-term rental for however long you want to do it. Is that sort of

absolutely correct and I may have misspoke. I'm not saying I'm doing a short-term rental. I'm trying to be property owner and put my mindset on what how I how I would do that. How it would affect Yeah. the property owner. So, I think a short-term rental that utilities would have to be in that name for a short term for that property owner's name because a short-term rener is probably not going to come in and put the utilities in their name for a week or 21 days or 21 days. It just makes sense.

Yeah. But but think about this. Okay, in in this scenario, um you can only have three within that,000 ft radius. So there may be a reason why you would want to go ahead and go start the application process even though you may have a tenant in there with the utility bill in their name. because if you wait then the those three spots might be taken.

So I I want to steer us back on topic. So the question is do you want them to have you know all three of them proof of ownership, proof of insurance and utility bill? Or you you can opt to pull one out or all the above or what have you. But that's that's where we need to reach a consensus like Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Why can't we do all the above? And if it's if we need to take an exception, they have an opportunity to state their issue. Same thing if it's a business, that's an exception. You know, you don't need a business license and information if you're an individual, not a business. So, it might not be all black and white, but for the general public, it be all the above,

right? I think was trying to tell us that they got proof of ownership. Yeah. When you have a deed, the insurance is a separate issue. I think the insurance is always good to have in there.

But the deed is the ownership. That's the end of the story. Utility bill goes out the window, right? That's just a if you don't have your deed handy and you're the owner and you have a utility bill, you can prove like you do for school systems for your kids to know where they're zone. You take a utility bill as a good example where you live, but that's not going to be definitive because there can be renters who have utility bills. So, that's not going to say they're an owner. And if the statute requires an owner, you're going to have to have proof of ownership, which is a deed. That's your your gold standard for owning a home. And so they're going to have to show that or mortgage something showing that they are the owner of that or the entity that is the owner because a lot of people sometimes forget that the person who's the manager of the LLC, the LLC is the owner. They're the manager. They're not the owner. Legally, you just have to keep it straight. You just have to be consistent. And I think that's what a deed does. just make sure the city is well aware of who the owner is. But you can also require additional documents if you want. I think that I just wanted to make sure that it's not like either or. But the utility bill could throw in

a wrench because someone could bring that instead of a deed and they don't own the property. No, we wouldn't know that. So, so in your thoughts, uh, Miss Priest, if if we said all the above and a applicant comes in here with a deed with their name on that deed, that settles it all. That's the ownership. Unless that doesn't matter about utility bill. And it's just like everything else. We trust what's brought to the city. We don't go behind it. That's for them to make sure that they are the owner of it. Now, if they sold it the day before, we would that's not going to happen. that I mean it is the best way to protect what you want to do.

So basically the deed is a is non-negotiable. They have to provide a deed or a mortgage. That's non-negotiable. Uh tax tax statement. You know those tax statements you get in I would go with the deed and the mortgage. They're not always the most current. A deed can be say if someone just bought a and this could happen in this situation short-term rental. they want to buy a property for use only a short-term rental. The first advisor and the deed still showing up and because it takes a year usually to process that again the Scott's office may not have gotten their record update yet. So what shows are there is a little lag in the need is that that's okay.

So let me ask this then in in light of the insurance factor because I think as part of this application the owner is going to have to show that they have insurance on that building. Is that at this point or is there another place in the application that mentions the requirement for insurance? Uh it's at the application process when they're registering too. I mean anywhere else in here where we're saying this is another document. If not, I think it needs to be here, but they need to show proof of ownership by a deed or mortgage and have insurance. Okay. So, we agree that they would need A and B. I guess the third question would be do you feel like they need a utility bill? I don't think so.

Half of that would supersede utility. Yeah, half but part of B says in utility bill on mine. Yeah, you scratch that. Yes. Proof of insurance and proof of ownership. Is there more? Just proof of insurance. Yeah, proof of proof of insurance and proof of ownership. Yeah, that's it. So, does that sort of satisfy your thoughts?

Okay. So, we have discussed here on this one that a proof of ownership and b proof of insurance are the primary things that we're looking at right here. Is everybody in agreement with that? Yes. Okay. You got the nod on that one? Yeah. I don't know what that mean. Yeah. All right. Number four. Should the short-term rental owner be required to live within the city limits? Yes or no? It should live within some certain rates. We'll open that up for discussion here this morning.

No, because they could have a management company that manages the property that and and there's requirements in the regulations that say the management company has to have an agent that's 30 minutes away or you know that kind of thing. Why is this a question? I mean, what's the what's the right kind of question? Is there a concern? Well, well, the reason for the question is that in the ordinance, it says that any short-term rental owner, property owner should live within the city. Okay.

I I think it's more so just like we have issues with long-term renters and absentee landlords where they're constantly renting properties, whether short-term or long-term, and they're not present in the city to to to look at the uh to look at the actual property to make sure it's being maintained and cared for and going back. And cuz even with a short-term rental, it's much like a hotel. I've stayed at them before where you have to when you go, they expect you to take out the trash, they have to clean the linens, they may have to clean the place. And if you have an absentee person, the likelihood of that could be less unless you have a person that tends to the property that's local.

Yeah. Would you be concerned if it was that whole other section on somebody within 30 minutes phone call? I mean, there's a lot of other Yeah. processes to mitigate that concern that we have with long-term long-term rentals. I mean, they they will have an opportunity. A person staying at a short-term rental, they typically leave reviews. So, that is indicative of the upkeep of the place. Yes. There should be long term. Correct. Just wondering, do we need that? That's something that needs to be discussed.

Yeah. I don't I don't think that needs to be in there. The owner has to live indicator or even within a certain radius with all the other requirements as far as having an agent that's local and within a phone call and able to do those things that cover that. Okay.

I mean, I might I might own my house and get transferred to somewhere else for a couple of years. I don't want to sell my house. So, I turn it into a short-term rental, have somebody here that's going to manage it and and be on on call because when I finish that assignment over there, I plan to move right back here. Right. So, with this comment, this suggestion and recommendation being made, are you all saying that we should ensure the application that we have a person that would respond? We make sure that they list on their application the person that will respond if there's any issues related to the property. Yes. And they have to respond within

30 minutes or hour, what have you. So that that will keep you close. That's under Can I clarify something here? I I don't read that it says the owner has to be here. It says the agent must be under 4C. It's under 4C. That's why I'm saying this is already covered. So I don't know why the ownership has to be here. But it does say the agent has to be indicated, right? They don't go with that. The agent has to have an address indicator. And so this one says the owner. So I guess we're saying we're okay with the with the A here. So So is everybody in agreement with B that no, the owner doesn't have to.

Okay. Everybody good with that? Could be C. Yeah. No. All right. Everybody good with that?

All right. Uh, next section is pre-registration concerns. Application intake on an annual or fiscal year cycle will overburden staff with the intake and inspection. If city building staff has to go out and inspect annually, it will become overwhelming for inspectors. And I guess that's comments coming from the planning building department and the various agencies here. I see actually none of the comments come from us. It's all okay. That was one of my concerns, right? I would suggest C with the date with the time of approval instead of application.

I would agree with you. Let me just ask Chad, is is your system that you're going to be using to monitor this capable of running a one month or one year cycle for the application rather than having them all come up at one time or even two times a year. I see that being mean you're overly burdened where if it's a review when it comes upon the one year anniversary then that spreads it out throughout the whole year. Is the system going to be able to handle that? From our perspective, the one-y year anniversary would work better. Okay?

Because we would get a a bottleneck. We have other task and responsibilities we have to attend to. So even for the uh building inspection department, they're constantly going with that project. So we don't want to overwhelm them at one period in a year. So to spread it out would in our opinion be the best. depends on the applicant when you go to inspect. Right. Correct. Where they are. That sounds good. But I do agree that the city need to inspect the year of inspection. We should not leave this up to the the people to do the own inspection. That make no sense whatsoever.

Okay. Does anybody have any different opinion than the 12? I think annual inspection I think an annual inspection is a little I mean I get mistake is saying totally like the you know taking care of your property but I think I didn't think it was required. I thought it was a self inspection.

It's a self inspection and then it's only it says renewals are not subject to yearly building inspection unless a registered complaint of a violation of any items included in the initial building inspections received within the previous calendar year. A yearly self inspection shall be required to be submitted by the property owner upon application. I thought I thought it was I thought I read that and then I thought maybe I hadn't read it correctly. But it's a self inspection complaint the city goes in. I don't think the city has inspected every year.

You know, the first the first year is the only year that they're required to have an inspection as written out. every subsequent year they can do a self inspection with photographs like but we actually did I'm not sure we put the details about photographs or checklist but we could definitely add that to the ordinance but the the following year after the first year is when they can do the self inspection you know what you said the ongoing third year also I mean that's something to consider perhaps we can set it up to where we do a a real physical inspection from the city standpoint every two years, every 3 years or

something. You say this I think the city you going to make have a ordinance and make a rules you need to be able to enforce it. Now who is going to call who is nobody in the community know what's going inside that house? They don't know if it's a violation or not. I don't know what's going in if they are short-term rental. I don't know what the h what's going on in the house. Correct. So, how are you going to get a complaint from me when I don't know what's going on in the house? May maybe a a short-term rental to make complaint a short-term rental. He going to leave and place and go.

Yeah. My point is you cannot leave this up this important decision up to the individual who rents the house out. If I'm reading the house, if I got a violation, do you think I'm going to send you a video of the violation? Well, well, if they have a violation or a complaint, that's where when they'll inact a city inspector going to inspect. But how do you know if you don't go in the inspector? How do you know everything in that house is up to code? And she didn't have a short-term rental. That's true. Okay. I have a question. Just a rental,

right? Not a short-term rental, just a rental. That's a good question. How many times do the inspectors go out to inspect that rental? We don't have long We that's coming in the future. We we're going to discuss that too, which is some great questions that you have now for this cuz those are questions we're going to look at for long-term rentals cuz we want to improve that as well. So, um at at the current time, we don't have a program for inspecting long-term rentals. Do we inspect anybody annually? Excuse me. Do we inspect anybody annually for long-term rentals? No. Anybody? Businesses, hotels, hotels? No.

Why we need to do it here? Unless there are concerns because they're concerned what they going to do in the future for these rentals, these slum loaders. What about if if we have review cards? It'd be mandatory for the renter to have review cards tailored to the question that might be concerned. You know, did you have this in your in your rental car? I mean, these people are paying for short-term rental experience and if we confront them with how was your stay, not just like how are the best sheets, but you know, getting into the enforcement to code. Airbnb does that.

Yeah. like when you leave a property, they'll send you a text survey asking how was your state, uh, did you see these particular items or so forth. I'm not sure if Randicus could help us with that, like asking, did you see this? Did you know where the uh, the exit maps were? Did you see a fire extinguisher, etc., etc., but typically those short-term rental companies do that in some capacity. If they answered and violated that was violated city.

Yeah, it's it's Chad. I want to build a comment today as far as inspecting inspection of long-term rentals. Is that I mean that's the first I've heard of it and certainly not hating it. Um perhaps this an issue to consider when we look at that overarching for all rentals or include short-term kind of table it right now for now because we don't want to build something specific just for short term but we want to build something later on for the entire for all rentals well and then shortterm underneath it.

Well there's two we'll handle both of them separately because there going to be nuances that makes them a little different. So, we want to address the short term by itself first and then go back and look at the long term. In terms of the inspections, when you typically think in a city where there may be an issue with a long-term rental multif family complex, for example, typically you won't know that there's an issue until a tenant complains, which is similar to a short-term rental. You wouldn't know that there's an issue with a short-term rental unless a tenant complain. And it takes a lot of human resources to inspect every rental property annually because several cities are going through this where they're struggling with tenants rights and the quality and of decent housing and they just don't have the staff to go inspect every property. So, but there are ways you can do this in a systemic way. So, for example, with long-term, you might have people register their properties and when they have a vacancy, have somebody come inspect the vacancy, let them know what the vacancy issues are, give them time to correct it, and make sure that all of their vacancies have those same corrections. With a short-term rental, it's the same thing. After that first year, they go in inspection and they see what the issues are or what's missing or the the defects. Give the property owner to fix it before you are even approved. At that point, the property owner should know that they have to maintain that in order to continue to be a a short-term rental.

But you go back and look at it every year, every 3 years, every 5 years. That's something that can be considered. Okay. Well, let me we'll talk about 135 house short potentially if they're all full in one time. Correct. 135. I go back again. If you going to make this and make this a success, you cannot leave inspection up to the property owner. You got to have some kind of reinforcement. Might be every two years, whatever it is. But you just cannot say I'm in do inspection the first year then you do what you want to do. You cannot do that.

So it's up to you all to recommend a period of time that we go back in and do a physical inspection using one of the city inspection. Well, I think the market, the renters will determine whether or not a property is, you know, meets code or is sufficient or has defects because suppose you have an inspector go out on February 1 to inspect the property and then there's a problem March one and they're not going to be back for another year. So, how is that addressed? That's addressed by the people that are actually renting that are, you know, complaining, calling the agent, registering a complaint. You know, none of the toilets work, you know, so they're on the phone with the management company, you know, they're leaving a survey or whatever and saying, "This place was horrible." And they don't do that a lot of times with with the short-term rental companies. They'll refund you some of your money or they'll ask that property owner take the property down or remedy it. But those reviews drive their business.

This also has a provision if there's three or more registered complaints with any city department on one particular property or violations of the ordinance that result in citation within one year period, then the short-term rental certificates revoked. So that's your punishment. Yeah, that's I mean that's your that's your solution from them continuing to rent it. It prevents that from happening because this is short-term rental which is distinct from long-term rental. This is treated typically closer to a hotel.

Long-term rental has a whole different set of laws that pro that that apply. This is some of them apply to this, but they're two different distinct categories. And there is annual fire marshal inspection. Correct. That's what it says right here.

Yeah, we can do an annual fire inspection. That's what it says in here. It says applications for renewal. A short-term rental certificate shall be submitted to the planning department by October 1st for each calendar year processing. Once application is received, year the fire marshall inspection will be scheduled and conducted for issuance of renewal certificate for the next calendar year. So I I mean if we're to cover our safety that's that's my main concern. Um I don't know that we need to go in and inspect every little thing once a year. I think leaving you know pictures I don't see any problem with that to be honest with you.

Okay. So so back to our bottom thing on page one. We decided that C is sort of our selection on 12 month cycle from the time of application. Yes. Yes. I think it's approval instead of application. But for time of approval. Approval. That's a good point. Yeah. Can you make that change on the planet? 12 month cycle time of application approval.

Yeah. Yeah. application date approve when they actually get their certificate. Just put on date of application. Yeah. Okay. On page two, this is sort of what we've been talking about here about what type of inspection should be required for re-registration. And we talked about fires going to come in there and do an annual inspection. Is that correct? So it says in Yeah, I think that's it. Unless there are complaints.

I would agree. What was that number? That is number uh number four. And then Z page 54. All right. So, yeah. Go ahead. That That's not going to be an October 1st date. It'll be right. It won't be an October first date. Right. Yeah. I think I think that covers the safety factor. Yeah. The fire. You don't get the news if you don't pass that.

Right. make sure the smoke detectors are working and the exits are identified, which is how you would normally do it with a hotel or some kind of other short-term. Yeah. Commercial building or anything? Exactly. So, so I guess looking at that at the policy, the October one needs to change, right? Yeah.

So, is everybody in agreement with that? probably decided something else on whenever the approval process here. Okay. Okay. So I guess in summary and number two we basically decided that uh fire inspections which is uh in the in the policy itself will stand for number two. Is that correct? And you're leaving in the self inspection as well, correct? We did talk about that. Yes, they're buried on the plan.

No, correct. So, so C would be that acceptance. Right. Okay. So, is everybody sort of in agreement with that in agreement with B and C and then fire inspect which which is already in the policy. And I think and I think everyone is on the same understanding. I'm just making sure when when we're talking about this language up here, this may be modified to make what you want correct and mesh with other provisions because the wording may change to make it work. Use legal ease.

Well, I'm not doing it. I'm just making sure that it's that y'all understand. It may not look exactly like it does right here today. This is to help generally get a consensus. There could be changes to make that effect occur. Okay. So, is everybody sort of in agreement with number two? Everybody good? Okay. So, it's like we're good for two. All right. Number three. Should there be a minimum number of nights that a short-term rental must be rented before registration? These are the thoughts and suggestions. Yes or no? And if it's yes, how many nights? So the this is for renewal for re-registration.

Yes. Re-registration. Yes. So in other words, I'm coming up on my renewal. I need to be able to show that in the last year I've used I've actually rented it out for x number of nights during the year. Okay. I think yes, but it needs to be a low number. I mean five or less.

Okay. Got thought there. Yes. Five. Anybody else thought it? I like this because it links back in with the line about the spirit of the ordinance. I'm really not sure what the spirit of the ordinance means. But if you have something like that, I think that kind of relates to it. So yeah. Why would we have a a requirement? Because you don't want people just sitting on these on these short application signs and there's other people who want to. So you want to I just feel like they would just be wasting money. But I mean I guess

they could be ting a spot in that thousand foot. Yeah. If they're not using it then they ought to lose it. sort of like having seen the tickets at a football stadium. You never Okay, so I've heard yes with five. Has anybody else got any thoughts or suggestions on this one? Anybody else? Okay. Are we all in agreement with yes and five? Okay. Any opposed? that you're meaning five night you mean five five nights per day or five nights for a year

a year for for a year so I think what we I was thinking five total nights which is not much but at least sure I just want to clarify make sure you're not making it that someone has a rent for it stay I would a year a year So don't be devil devil's ass. Okay. If someone just want to do it one time for three nights, do they not have to go after the application? So this is for re-registration. This is for renewal. Okay. Renewal. Okay. Never mind.

Okay. It has nothing to do with the original application. This is re-registration. This is upon their annual renewal. Okay. that we're good in there. I mean, there's all kinds of like little I mean, say they only did it three times last year and they're up for re-registration, but they said, "But look, I just renovated the back part of my property and to make it more enticing for people that want SDR." I think the city needs to listen to that and say, "Okay, I understand that could be an extension."

There'll be instances where we do exceptions. And will Granus tell you how many nights a property has been rented? I do think they have the capacity to, but we also would like for the uh property owners to do it, too. Answer is yes. Okay. Because Yeah. I mean, how would you know if you're just relying on the property owner and tell them, "Well, you got to have at least five to get reregistered." Well, everybody's going to have at least five.

Well, if they're paying taxes, I'll be able to look at that and know exactly how many times I Okay, thank you.

Good point. Thank you. Okay, we're uh ready to move on to inspection, safety, compliance, ADA concerns. Uh just some comments here. Uh many older homes will not meet structural requirements for ADA building codes, stairs, and handrail stuff. These requirements exceed the basic life safety codes such as fire extinguisher, smoke detector, CO detectors, maps, etc. Should properties be required to be ADA compliant? That's a yes or a no.

No. Everybody good with no? Okay. Should we require properties to list all ADA accessible features? No. No. Anybody feel like you could list? I think so. I think you should list some features, but you know, not not required to be ADA compliant. I give that we're not going to have a handlebar and all the shower and bathroom and stuff, but but if you've got some accessible features in the back, we're talking about a requirement to do that. As a business owner, I'm going to do that if I want to get those folks to come in my place.

Correct. So it's a difference in yeah I'm going to do that if I have those benefits and those those any kind of any kind of accessibility thing that's going to be a marketing feature but we're talking about requiring them notice that which I think crosses the line all and and in the orientation we have with the participants in the short-term rental program we can we can encourage them that it would be in their best interest to market that they have accessible features at the Right. Yeah. I mean, I think I think if you got step in showers instead of tubs, that's that can be a feature that you need to advertise.

Okay. While we're here, I have another thought. I'm all about the life safety code, the fire marshall inspection, but there are a lot of houses indicator that don't meet today's current building standard codes.

Correct. So I I think we need to take out all that from the building department inspection. I'm 100% on the life safety code, but every stair stair has to be this wide. Can't be more than a saw blade width, different stair to stair, handrails on each side. You take a house built in the 1920s, it would be very expensive to make it build meet today's building ordinance. I actually thought I had a question like that related to that, but I I guess I erroneously admit omitted it. But that's true. And in the case of like historic houses, they won't be built the same way that a modern house might be built to the building code. So it it would exclude them from participating in the short-term rental program.

Now, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, those type things. Absolutely. but not a handrail on each side that's 42 1/2 in from the tread. So, I guess while we're on that thought, uh, Mr. Pikes brought up a a thought and observation. Are we all in agreement that it shouldn't be a house shouldn't have to be up to current building codes for it to be a short-term rental?

Okay. So let in answer your question, let me ask a question here. Point number two which covers this. Uh the fire marshall building inspector will ensure safety and compliance with all applicable building and fire codes. What what what is is every every home looked at the same way already in the building codes at being applicable? That's a valid point. So see that's where the subjective factor that I mentioned earlier comes into in my mind.

Right. We can't really go into a home that's a historic home for example and ask them to make modifications just so that they could be a short-term rental especially when you have design guidelines for historic property. So applicable would be appropriate. So that's already covered. Would that already be covered there? It's like it doesn't apply to my house. We would need to look at the wording of it. I need to look at the wording or the legality of it because generally when you live in your home, when you build it, it has to be up to whatever the current right

code is. But when you change something, then you have to go up to code. But when you don't, you don't. So, I don't know in a short-term realm. I guess I'd have to just look and see. When I say applicable, it would mean what would be applicable for each one. So, this would

applicable currently worded would not preclude I think it doesn't say all current. it just says applicable, which would be whatever applies to um but I would have to look at the legality to see if I don't think it would require them to make a change unless it was building codes normally apply to new construction or remodel. Yeah. Like if you're changing electrical system out, you have to put it to the new code, but if you're not changing it, you don't have to. But as far as letting someone stay there, I don't think it has to be brought up to code. Well, and I don't think you want to eliminate that that it doesn't have to meet building code,

right? Because then that just sounds really I mean we want to have a standard. So you need to have the fire safety factor without a question. And where it says applicable building codes, I think that covers I think that does too. I didn't think that would be a question for it because I assumed it meant that you're currently not in violation, I guess, is the way to say that because I can't say it's not current because it won't be current. Not in violation by leaving your home not current. It was current when it was built.

Correct. That you have Yeah. I mean, but if you put an additional last year and didn't go current and no one inspected it, that is a problem, right? That that's where I think when someone opens this up, it might um there could be things that the city discovers. Sure. Because people do a lot of things without city inspection. So that could come up. I mean because we have it in historic where people have modified without approction goes in and they find the problems. Correct. It would probably fall under a safety factor in most cases. So, all right. So, does that answer your question, Mr. Pot? Yes. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you.

Now, next we're moving into density concerns. Uh 1,000 ft radius is inequitable in neighborhoods where there are higher densities and smaller street width. The 1,000 ft radius combined with the maximum number of short-term rentals is limiting and could reduce the number of properties in particular areas like historical districts. Another point, the historic district community has selected to have a density rule. So there is is a desire to have limits in some communities while other communities may not elect to have density rules. And I guess it's this is sort of circulating around density is sort of what we're looking at here. So the number one thought question here comment please select the density requirements you find the most suitable. A is density requirements for all communities or two determine which community should have a density requirement or not have a density requirement based on the community design and geographic location.

And I'm just going to say this in general because this came up in the last meeting. You can have different densities for different geographical locations in the cities. It is not unconstitutional to do that and it's it happens in many communities and that there's case law and as long as um it's not discriminatory specifically in it intent then it is not prohibited. So that's just to give you guidance on that you can have different densities for different uh zoning areas. I'm up big.

Yeah. So, basically what came up in the conversation before would be like a riverfront section or riverfront community where we would outline this is a riverfront area. We could have different density requirements there as maybe everywhere else in the city without creating a problem because the whole nature of the be of that area would be lending itself to this and be advantageous for our entire community and economy. So yeah I I would be amazing closer to water than further away. Well, where I came from out west where there's ski slopes,

right? And then just also multi- family as opposed to single family and there's just different there's all different ways to Yeah. Could it be time to zone it? You know, like if you have a multifamily zoning, you have a higher density as opposed to another residential zoning where you have, you know, one house on five acres. Some cities have areas that don't allow it in certain zones and do allow it. So, yes, do different.

I want to point out one thing. The committee that originally wrote this was with citizens from all parts of the city. This is what they spent the most time on was this density thing. And this is what they came up with was this three and 1,000 ft. And they probably spent four meetings discussing just this one topic. So this would be a big change if you change this from what your citizen committee suggested to begin with. So is that regardless of the location? Well, at that time they it was Yeah, it was citywide. It was citywide. Tell you what, my

the river thing that's come up is, you know, I could see where you could change that, but throwing this whole density thing out and you're going to throw out what the committee spent the most time debating. And you can do that. That's your That's your thing. I just want everybody to understand. My thoughts is the rule should be citywide. You got just 135 houses for the city of Decay. And I don't think any one community should get any special privilege over

and I'm going to tell you why the committee didn't like that because there were a lot of neighborhoods and just take a hysterical historical neighborhood. Nobody wanted a whole block to be uh short-term rentals. And so if you if you just have a maximum number until you make that maximum every house on that block could be it. So I'm I'm I'm not I'm just telling you what the committee because I was there with the committee what they came up with for the thousand miles away but I want the rule be across the six. That's what I'm saying. I would have a problem with that and I think it's a good ration.

I like that. And then question three has the varian options go to BOSA for density issues. So that's kind of an outlet for if you want to change it for a particular area, you go to Boza and then both can adjudicate decide. But change but that's why you can have new route start with a rule for everybody and then if it doesn't work in a particular neighborhood they go to Boza they can change it. Exceptions if there's a hardship I think you know you can come to BOA with a hardship you know the key word hardship. Yeah, be a waterfront issue. There's a lot of people wanting to do this. Okay. But it's on both.

Yeah. It's another discussion for a particular area, you know, for a particular reason. But for all realize, you don't need to be a parent and I don't need to be trying to get my operator. What I want to add to it is I just asked Ruth There is the possibility to have a density requirement across the city but at different densities in different communities which would be a lot of work but

I think it depends on why a lot of this hinges on the purpose. It can't be arbitrary. There has to be reasoning behind it. That's where you get into problems when you just make arbitrary rules. There has to be a purpose for it legally for it to be substantiated. And that's why I know with water that is a purpose that's been substantiated time and time again. The courts have have reaffirmed a lot of that. So you can't just say randomly these are going to get this density and this is there has to be and there will be generally but I mean I just have to make sure I clarify that it's not just we're just randomly dropping in different parts of the city.

That's probably like an overarching start with a th000 start with a thousand, you know, and then address those particulars as that's wise to see how this goes before. I don't know. That's the key to this whole thing is we're starting from the ground here and as we go forward we're going to learn more about sort of how the citizens want to do this and take on this and they'll be this is a living document just

like anything on an application say the cap 135 but we end up we got 220 people who want to send in applications at 135 y'all just deny or you going to look at the address, record it. I mean, cuz there's 225 that want it. Are we going to look at the city and say, "Okay, what parts of town are people really trying to is the parks in is it like Jack De is waterfront?" We we're going to look at, of course, where the destinations are. But if we cap it, we just cap it. And we'll keep that data. We can keep that data and look at the data and kind of analyze where people are wanting to do it for the next year. and they'll help us improve the program by looking at where the applicants are located, that sort of thing. But the the real reason for the cap is, you know, we don't want it to get out of control, right?

And then with the density requirements, it can prevent it from getting out of control of particular areas or neighborhoods.

Well, isn't the density going to get keep from getting out of control period without a cap? I mean, I don't see as I sat down and thought through this and went on a map and actually started drawing some circles, I think the density rule in and of itself is going to control the the cap. I don't think we need to have a specific capable. We can only only have 135. I mean what if I mean I really think this whole density rule is going to control exactly how many we have and if there are exceptions are going to be in places like the waterfront which is designed for that somebody comes in with a that develop under bison that's what they want that's a whole different guideline but the citywide I think you know I don't understand how the density rule wouldn't automatically control the number

and it it will it'll reduce the number you can have overall. Sure. And um I I don't see where the cap I'm opposed to a cap to start from. I think as we get into this if we see that but I just in in in me looking at our city and that that whole thousand radius limitation of three I I think that's going to automatically put a cap on when you touch them. They had a cap and they didn't have density. So it was either or and they have the University of Alabama density in a cap. It's either or density or

Yeah. But but that's a whole different situation and they had a whole different situation. I don't think I don't think that applies here at all. So So we going So So the cap is out. I would take the cap right out of the question to me. And we also got to remember that at the same time we don't have a board only that's for a year to to go through and change some of these things short part of that something not working out. The only good we can always change it at any time.

The only good part about cap is it's a useful training factor fire department people doing inspections. Okay. Okay. What is going what is going to be workload? It's going to be 135 applicants from stop. So you can plan on you go with density. How many is that going to be? It's going to be 150. It's going to be 200, 250. It's a more ambiguous number. It's the I like bulky. I like how I like the density. Certainly controlling the neighbor impact on neighborhoods. I like the cap for planning factor for different agencies need to support this ordinance. They know what the workload's going to be or the limit of how much work it's going to be for the particular agency. Let's put it out there. We want a cap or we want a D

and change it and change the cap later on if it's if 135 is too restrictive, you know, after a year. Say, okay, come back and we'll make it 250 or whatever the right number is without violating donating density. Yeah, the cap has more flexibility than the density. The density is to protect anglers. So that's important. So you don't want all 135 in waterfront. 35. Do you have a comment?

I was just going to say the committee discussed a a total and a density and they came up with the density. That's just your citizen committee. Like I said, they debated this a lot and they came up with density. I think this is a major change when you go from density to a cap. Yeah. kind of what they recommend. If you got it that I feel like when I go to a short-term rental, I want a waterfront downtown. Of course, there a lot of new storage.

Yeah. Yeah. Want to want to walk around that type thing. In saying that, I think the thousand ft is too big. that and back to the committee. The thousand feet was to protect residential subdivision neighborhoods, not a waterfront. The waterfront actually was never discussed in that committee. I think if it had have been, it' been a different story because most of our waterfronts are not neighbors. Right. Right. But they're they're that part's in now. Well, no, nothing's in y'all put it in there. That's You would have to add that. It's not in your name. Where did I read that? Didn't we?

The waterfront. Whatever. North of Highway 20 to the river. Okay. We suggested that. Okay. End result, I want to stay downtown on waterfront. Can't do both of those indicators. So, if I can't stay on the waterfront, then I want to stay downtown. And I think the thousand foot is limiting my ability to go there and stay if I'm the if I'm coming here. If you want to protect neighborhoods, but you can put a liquor store property from the church, right? Or that's protecting that thousand people or just a guy who wants to just Yeah. I like the 500 better.

I know. I mean, you got you got both of them. If you're going to have both of them, cut that,000 foot. You got the cap. I think we need both. I mean, we go into something with new and I think we need a control. I think the market's going to control year one to go with 135 because this is we don't want to have no cap and then my kids would be laughing but uh if you put no somebody could take advantage

how I think it's countywide. Y'all, I think that number is countywide, not citywide. Okay. So, on number one, on this first one, did we all agree that it's a requirement for all communities? Yes, I do. Okay. How do we how do we handle that?

Well, I have a question. Well, just a thought. Um, let's just take Rocket Sour for an example. there's going to be certain times or certain events where there's going to be more of a demand and you know than the opposite. There's going to be less of the demand at certain times, certain events. Correct.

So, how do you manage all of that in this? And then going back to Rocka South where we're expecting a lot of people, a lot of demand for short-term rentals, but that's just one weekend. So, do you do you make allowances or exceptions for No. No. They have to be registered, have approved and be prepared to go with rock south, which is one of the motivations for this.

Right. Well, but that's that's so what I'm thinking is okay. So, you have the process and people go through the process and then Rock the South is coming in June. So then you have more people in March or April that say, "Well, I want to do a short-term rental just for this event." So are we saying,

right? Yeah, you have to go through the process, but that that might change the density. I mean, I guess what I'm asking is if you have a density of three per thousand ft across the whole city and then you have a special event where there's more people that want to do a short-term mel and then yes, they have to go through the whole application process. But do we look at the fact that there may be a higher demand Generally, most cities have it set that it's the same year round. What changes all of that is the cost for like football season in a college town. The cost of an Airbnb is about quadruple. What it is out non football season. There will be multiple events in the city throughout the year. Alabama Jubilee Rock for people who want to just come for a fishing tournament, softball tournaments. you're going to have all portions of the city affected in different ways by different events throughout the year. So I think most of the ones I I looked at several just to try to get a flavor for because I didn't create you know that this is just something I was looking at others to see what they have and they don't change it generally based on seasonal events because if rock decided to only do it for one year you just put in place an ordinance that's now obsolete. if they decided not to come back another year or if if another event was cancelled, you know, it it just too hard to manage.

It's kind of like it's like getting a variance almost like that's what boza is for. or if there's an exception to a rule and they say, "This doesn't apply to me and I need something because I'm I have a hardship that you never considered and it's way too difficult, not financial, but just way too difficult that I need a special reason not to follow the ordinance." That's what our boza is for. And this is we are trying to generally cover with an ordinance everybody as well as we can. And like you said, this is a breathing document. As times go on, there may be changes, but generally most cities, it's very general for all year round. In fact, I don't know if that answers your question or not. I think if you if you specify a rock or south, you would have to think of other

events that if you would say, okay, this these vents are excluded from this. We've had something all the time outside. Mhm. Yeah.

All right. We've had a lot of discussion here on this one. So, number one, what's your pledge? B. We got to be I would I agree with Eddie Beach. Not per legal we really can't do. You can't do but but we have you know we either have densities for everyone or don't you don't you can you just have to be very specific or specific about what you're doing. It's not that it's prohibited. Okay. Well, so can we have a density rule and then have certain areas that are exceptions like a riverfront section?

Is that possible legally? Like you you you draw a line and say, "Okay, this is riverfront. This is different from everywhere else. We don't have density there. We have density rule covers everywhere else. Can we do that or no?" That was my fault. A lot of cities do. Yes. I mean I mean I don't understand why they No, it's not a privilege. You give them all the room. I answer your question. Let me answer the question before you interrupt.

I said it's not necessarily a privilege. It's a matter of a business. It's not it's it's because there's a whole different situation where they live. The entire environment is different along the river than everywhere else that we live. So why should they? I steal the same question to you which is the riverfront don't pay any more tax than anybody else. So why would we say they can have they can get all of the rent? If you want to be on the river front, make your shortterm rentals for just the river front district if that's what you want to do. Yeah.

But you can't make a short you going to do a shortterm real then you going to say okay but you ought to have you get the bulk of the rims. No, I said you don't need a cap. You got to remember that I don't think we need a cap. Well, because you think they don't need a cap. I don't I'm just saying my thinking falls along with that and we have an area. So it's just an alternative way to think of it. You are giving you are making rules that X amount of people can have the bulk of what come into this city.

Why would it be if there's not a cap and it's not an advantage? Oh, you don't think it's advantage that they don't have groups? Let me interrupt.

We discussed earlier that we can have density and that there might be a propensity for us to have different densities with with justifiable reasons why. So, at this point, it's a matter of do we have density? We have we pretty much have to in the way have it for all communities until we identify how we can adjust it or what have you. So, and that is something that the public wanted, but we we may be able to go back and look at adjusting the densities in different areas based on justifiable reasons.

Zoning, you have different zoning, residential zoning districts that have different densities, right? That's true. So if you have a residential district where there's a high density versus a residential district with a low density. Correct. So we're So the question is are both of those treated the same or are they treated differently based on the zoning based on the density that is there the the properties that are physically there.

Correct. The way we initially stated it is that that one density rule that we had will be applicable to all communities. But you raised a valid point, a very very valid point. Different communities and different zonings have different density anyway, right? You know, they may have a different number of structures per acre or what have you. So per,000 ft, different number of structures. And so to really make it equitable to your point, it would be that different areas would have different densities, different zonings based on the zoning and density and the current density, right? So, who's going to term elect?

Excuse me. The planning department will look at it'll be a lot of work, but we can research and look at the different zoning classes and see what be what will be applicable. Don't you think that's a year two thing because it'll take a minute. It'll take a minute. And I agree.

So, it'll take a minute. We could either apply one density rule going into shifting the different densities for different districts. That'll take a while and we should at least study the landscape and see what happens in the next year after we pass this ordinance because we may never need to do that. Who knows? But at the same time, we do know certain areas of particular areas will be more desirable. And we do know that the public has spoken and said they don't want to overabundance in their community. So, it's it's a fine balance. That's why I like the thousand because it's slow to works for everybody at the moment right now. But even between the Alley district, you know, and the old kid district there, the streets streets are different. You know, so there's going to be different concerns for every neighborhood, you know, even though you have even though there's going to be the same. So start with a thousand and then work the exceptions from there versus trying to figure out all the exceptions and all the nuances be right now at this point. I'd like to think we could create the perfect plan today, but I don't think

Yeah, it won't it won't happen today. You know, it won't happen. We are not going to Yeah.

It's going to look different 5 years from now or 10 years from now because we'll gather data and we'll figure out this stuff and we don't know all that today. So, I think we can make some some general decisions and get this thing started and we can move forward from there. So recognizing that there will be exceptions and differences, you want to talk about how what that process is to address and approve those differences. That's why I would like to agree with with Boza as providing variances to the debt because that kind of establishes the process for how that's going to work. start with a thousand now with okay we're going to look at this and we're going to use BOSA as the mitigator for density challenges

that's a very that's a hardship they have to have okay so you can't can't do this but there are other reasons I agree with what you're saying and there are also things like we have daycare centers that have to go before because you don't want too many in one area because traffic flow so I It could go for that purpose more than we're not necessarily issuing a variance. Boza is going also does special exceptions. They do u special use is permitted on appeal. They do other types of VOA is in charge of multiple things. Um

so every time you go to MOSA it doesn't mean that it's going to necessarily have

Sure. Right. Yeah. that would need to be removed so that it's not necessarily bringing a varian we have to you have to word that in a way that allows if there's someone if they want an additional one within the thousand ft petition to both the board for that approval and then it would be up to the board to make that determination. Now I do think if you do that there needs to be maybe some guidelines for them to look at because they're just going to say why do we have this rule and why are we if everyone in the neighborhood decides to come. But generally if those give notice, the neighbors if they don't want another one will come in and tell the post board we don't want another short-term rental. That's why we but that gives the neighbors a chance to come in and say that in a daycare center you have to go to BOSA for approval. There can't be so many located near each other. They come to BOSA and they the BOSA board talks to them about that and finds out when are you how many children are you having there? When are you going to be having traffic flow? Do you have a place for people so that they're not all parked in the street blocking it? There's a lot of questions they ask in those in those regards. So it doesn't necessarily mean it's a variance. It could just be that they could go there. But like Tommy said, it's not that we want to set a rule that automatically we're going to have then 75 people come for a vote of approval immediately

and and some of that we won't know until

and that'll be that'll be very overwhelming. So even to the degree that we've been discussing increasing the price for to go before goal cuz with this new zoning rewrite, we're going to have a lot of people that are trying to deviate from the new zoning ordinance and we need to determine because they have to realize if it's a true hardship or not and if they're willing to invest that money to come before that committee to be heard. So in in the event of this that would really be overwhelming and we have to consider that. So that speaks to the point we probably need to also look at some point raising the the fee for to go for cuz we don't want people just trying to navigate our ordinances. This is this is a very odd time because we have a brand new zoning ordinance that's going to have a ton of potential issues that may need to be addressed by Boza

and planning is now taking over BOSA which is currently under a building department. So when you put the new zoning ordinance in play, the BOSA meetings now are going to be handled by the department that's handling this that's handling the zoning ordinance. And so they're handling all of it and it's all coming into play at once just and that is a distinction. I don't know if y'all are aware who handles those meetings and that's the building department currently and under the new zoning ordinance it will be the planning department.

All that said is this where the rearront exception gets put in? We talked about it. I just assumed it was in there.

And that's a good good point because, you know, we've got potentially this city harbor project that's coming to the cater soon and I don't know the update, but it's been talked about and I feel like it's going to keep progressing and it's going to be here before we know it. So, I think we should do the riverfront, but I think it should stop at where we draw that line because if we don't, we're going to take up over toward Church Street back through there. Take up some of that in the if we stay at 1,000 ft, we're going to knock some of those out. So, my opinion, wherever the line is from here to the river, that doesn't include that radius across Again, I think we're at a point where we have to determine if we can legally do it like where we just totally exclude the river and if there's a way

I think it's just the terms you're stating it in. I I don't have a problem. It's not that there is no issue with doing that. There are legitimate government interests in traffic flow uh where people the recreational use. There are a lot of reasons to do that. When I was asked the question, it was for all different zones in the city. That is not something I can just give you an answer on. I don't know all the different zonings to know what can be allowed in each one and what but yes, it's it's allowed. the the river is definitely a place that in cases and and in just in general zoning the landscaping matters. The zoning matters. It there's more multifamily housing. There's more traffic that's flowing over there. Anyhow, it's not disruptive of the pattern. There are reasons people want to be there because of the recreational use that are different from another part of the city. There are neighborhoods that do not want that density because they do not want traffic on their streets. The streets are wider or narrower. There's not parking. There is parking. These are all of these are the factors that need to be considered when doing it.

Correct. There is not a problem with putting a density or taking the density away for the riverfront property. I think that's a very clear we know that all these other cities have done that. that if you go to the beach, you're going to have a short-term rental for most of the condominiums that are on on the Gulf. And there's still going to be single family houses that are closer that probably still won't have that. I don't know where their zoning changes, how the distance from the waterfront, but that's I I just think you have to know your geographic boundary of where that ends when you're going to put it into play because it has to be understandable. You just have to know what area. So if it's, you know, highway 20

initially, uh, when I looked at it, I did like 1,000 ft frontage from the river, and that's what I was thinking as a geographical area that could be excluded from the density. And that would basically take it from the river to um to the uh the street behind it. Um, you better. Yes. between four lane road and I think that's a natural divider coming down through there all the way through the city indicator. Yeah,

cuz it all those properties even there are multif family properties that don't exactly have frontage on the river that are part of the complexes that front the river. So you would want those other apartments in those complexes included too. But that was the best biography come up with and it was really more so um somewhere between 900 ft to 1,000 ft from the river back. Does that make sense about stopping though on Highway 20 the radius or circumference doesn't come across 20? You can use 20 as an

That would be my suggestion to simplify it.

So are we stating what the density would be for that area? We're we're ask we're saying that they may be excluded from the density. Oh, they will be excluded from the density. Okay. So now saying our B3 our river front will be excluded. That's the zoning for that B3 river front. That stops at 20 that zoning board stop at 20. That 40 that zoning stops at Highway 20. It don't stop necessarily at Highway 20, but that's a zone that

I know that's Yeah, but that that zone extend across Highway 20. Let's go beyond river park. Yeah, the parkway drive. Drive. Yes. Parkway. Yeah, the parkway. It's not very much that Yeah. But that whole riverfront zoning then follows that line all the way across pretty much. It may not, but at least the zoning will capture. Sure.

And it's already a designated area. I think if we're going to keep I'd like to talk about $500 500. There are others that feel that. Okay. Three within 500 fee instead of a thousand. So three within 500 instead of three within a thous count for the thousand.

Okay, that's that's question number two on here. So number one, we we had the requirement we just talked about with the exclusion of the riverfront as it was defined. Uh so you know how are we with that? I think M didn't didn't want to agree with that. Uh so what does everybody else I would agree with you guys in other words be

well yeah but you're saying communities and design location is actually zoning it have to be changed to zoning zoning which is what I've been saying. Okay. Thank you. James would be the river front zoning all the way across it. Good. I think most everybody sort of is in agreement with with that number two. Yeah. So here we get to number two which is what you would I guess asking about the I guess you said 5 on your feet. It's what you but that's based upon you having a cat. If we don't have a cap and the th00and foot

Yeah. I think we don't have a cap. I mean the 1000 foot's going to control the density. Right. And that that was my position. I I wouldn't have a cap. And I know Kent said that the uh the group that met several times on this decided on a thousand. But yeah, but I don't think that they had mentioned the cap at that time. Right. That was not part of that discussion. I was there and it was so many years ago. I don't even remember. Three years ago. I mean, either way, if we have a cap or we don't have a cap, we can always come back and change it. I think it would be easier to have the cap.

The mayor did say they only have a density. As Tommy mentioned, we got the cap from Tus. Yeah, we really we don't have uh as some would say the greatest football team in the state, you know, so or even attracts attention either way. Well, let me ask you this. Are you going to be able to control it and enforce it if it's not a cap? I mean, what's the rules if you can't enforce sitting here?

Additionally, we won't. As you're saying, we won't be able to control the number we have in the city, but hopefully the radius will. I mean, the city is only yay big. So, with with the density radius, that'll help. And we don't have just that many at the moment. Anyway, out of the hundred and so that they said we had in the area, only like 70 something were active. So, you know, we have es and flow as as Ruth mentioned of events and activities. So, you know, you don't have them in short, you don't have them in certain zoning areas. You don't have short-term rentals in any of the commercial or business zones, right?

It's all going to be the residential areas. And I think we have a lot of issues. Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, there are zoning areas where you won't have any short-term rentals, sir. There are zoning areas where you don't have short-term rentals. It says short-term rental units located in a commercial zoning district. Is it shall not count towards the total density requirement just for the commercial? At what point do we decide which zoning would get be available for short-term rentals and what would not?

Or has that already been decided? Could you ask a question? I'll try again. Are we saying that uh short-term rental is up for all across Decator all zoning? Are we eliminating some zoning and saying, "Okay, this zone does not have it. This zone does." We're not um I don't think we're not not including short-term rentals in any particular zoning. what the conversation has been thus far and even that's in the ordinance now is more so about the density in particular zoning. It's currently allowed in all zones. Some cities do limit where it's allowed and they limit in certain zones.

I understand Huntsville only allows it correct in business areas. Madison doesn't allow it. Athens doesn't allow. Coleman doesn't allow it at all. at all. My understanding I bet they're getting my opinion is that they are probably they have Airbnbs in there monitoring a lot of people doing it right now. That's absolutely the case. I stay in the shortterm rhythm.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, so we we've heard a couple of different things. So, what you know, we've got 1,000 ft here. We've had the the u a recommendation I guess or a thought of 500 ft. That could be the I'm like 1,000 cuz that's what the group came up with unless but I don't know what the reason is to 500. There's a good reason to make 500. I just don't it's going to limit my second more. Well, and my two concerns were waterfront and commercial. So, you're you know waterfront being kept at or you know stopping at Highway 20 and then also commercial district not

I think I think I'm okay with a thousand. We could start there and we can change it later if we I prefer the 500 because I like the downtown. That's just where I want to go when I stay somewhere. That's what I was I was thinking about

Yeah, downtown's historic in my mind. But that's just my thought. Okay, we've got we've got 500 in a,000. Let's let's take a little straw poll here. How many rep for 500? I don't thousand. Just me. Okay. Wait, got two over there. You're with 500, though. A thousand. Thousand.

Okay. How many thousands we got? Look like the majority wants to go with a th00and. So, we'll we'll start there. I mean, so the options here were a,000 maximum number a gap for a thousand and a cap. So you taking a vote on all of those or just Well, we we've established a thousand. Now we can decide do we want a cap just the cap.

Well, I've been told I'm opposed to a cab. That's where my goal would be to start out with. No cap with the thousand foot radius. We could always come back if the thing gets out of hand or we think it's greater than we can manage within our system. We can come back and we get out of but that would that's just where I would stand and I'm just one vote of 9. I like the cap just for planning back you know allows different agencies say okay I need to just my workload or anticipated workload up to 135 you know and it's not going to do any radius calculations or anything like that. Um that that's my cap.

I hate to throw a wrench, but does the cap include those on the riverfront and commercial that are not included in the radius number? That's very No, it would. But then there's nothing I mean if 135 is not the right number, come back to us and we'll adjust it to the right number. But it's a planning factor. Yeah. Can you adjust the cap? Can it be adjusted outside of the calendar year? It can. And 135 is what Tuscaloosa did, right? So, where did y'all come up with 135? We were at 129. Okay. Already. Okay.

So, it's an arbitrary number between 129 15. Yeah, we could do 150 or Yeah. How many would be I just don't take all the res

don't know that. Yeah. And that's some of the number y'all need. And and I'll tell you why it's kind of it's kind of hard to pinpoint because the radius is going to be determined by the first house of the community and then it'll go from there. So you don't know where that first home is or what have you.

I really think the density rule is going to maximize it and and control the number. You know, when I looked at that, it's like you just pick you're going to get to the point where you only have so many anyway. And I don't think it's going to be an unmanageable number. And once we get to know what that number is going to be, then I think your agencies, your department's going to all plan on that. But I really think that density factor is going to limit the number. And it it it's not going to go any bigger than that because that's where we are and it's going to change. So one year on one year it might be 135. One year it might be 150 and then it goes back down to 125 depending on where the radius is and where the houses are and start to plan the workload started.

But I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal especially when it's spread out over 12 months. It's not like a workload that comes all at one time a year. If that was the case that would be a totally different story in my mind. But when you got it spread out over 12 months, you know, I I think after year one, you know, year two and three, it's going to be the story. And I don't think it's going to be something that's going to put a workload on on any one department. Mr. Gary, maybe you want to take Okay, we got sort of two two thoughts here. One, we stick with the 135 uh count or we release the count. So, what was their body?

I think you should stick with the cap. Stick with the cap. Cap. I'm still hanging out with the cap. Okay. With the cap. Cap. Okay. No cap. No cap. No cap. I say cap. Cap. Cap. All right. Look like cap. And the cap is 135. Yes. A cap. Okay. Uh, number three, should we have a variance option to go to MOSA for a density issue? We we cannot necessarily say variance, but for special exceptions or what have you.

Well, we can we'll figure out what would be the best with that if you want to allow those to be involved in and retaining any additional maybe an exception. It could be a variance. It depends on how it's all but just to allow those I think you got to allow an option to go to appeal to somebody.

So what why can't it be administrative? Why do we got to go to the Ugel? We got to have us uh something positive that we can so I can make an administrative decision. If they oppose it, the next step would be to go. Correct. I like the administrative decision. I'm good with that.

Yeah. I I just assume that's what we were talking about. When all else fails, they've gone through the process, then they can appeal. So, yes. Coming back to y'all and preach the vote. Exactly. Well, the way I was seeing it is if John sit next to each other and I'm coming I'm trying on the last one trying to get it. Yeah. Then I say, "No, I can't. Let me go and get it through that way." What do So, we're clear. I think everybody is everybody good with that? Let it go to the administrative and then then it would go to Bose after it was through. All right. Everybody good with that? Yes.

Okay. Seems like we got agreement on that. Parking. Uh we sort of run past our time, but let's see if we can finish up right quick. Parking. And here's number one. Uh is two off street parking spaces good enough for a minimum on all STRs? Yes, I think so. Yes. Amen. This is talking about amendment. Yes. Not a normal middle. Yes. Good. Everybody good with that? Mhm. Well, what what about like the common say where you have a historic downtown doesn't have any right. Exactly. on-site parking. So,

or and that eliminates them if they don't have on-site parking and they don't even qualify. Exactly. Yeah. Maybe sketch. Do you think

I mean it shouldn't it shouldn't exclude them because they don't have offsite parking if if a homeowner comes from downtown and they come to me and say, "Hey, I don't have two minimum spots. I don't even have a driveway or a pad for it." And then the next question would be, "Do you have an adequate place for on street parking?" Because we know some of the side streets of downtown are narrower than some of the main streets. So if they say you know uh in front of my house they can accommodate so many parking spots. Administrative decision administrative decision again. Yeah. So was everybody good with a yes on that one? Minimum of two.

Yes. Yes. Everybody good? Everybody good? Okay. Uh before we leave parking, I have one more thing. Okay. The off streetet parking uh for trailer. We talked about fishing tournaments. That's been mentioned several times on the river side. There's a lot of places that don't have places to pull a boat and a I mean a truck and a trailer equipment moving around. I I think we have to address that or make that an administrative decision also.

Now, now what I will say to that is and I have to research. I'm not sure if our regular parking ordinance would allow for like trailers with boats and that sort of thing on the street anyway. So, we wouldn't want the short-term rental ordinance to to to oppose that contradict it. So, we might need to ride around and see.

Well, or if I have to move mine, I have to park on the street. Um may maybe we ask that they provide if they know that kind of event is happening and we know it's happening in the city you can maybe put out information saying where they can park those kind of vehicles and sort of thing. But that's one of those things I think would disrupt the community and the neighbors would really be unhappy about. So I would already expect a plane s. So I wouldn't want to, as I mentioned, deviate from what our ordinance already says about having those type of vehicles along the street.

So Fisher people won't be able to use the riverfront basically. I mean, I suppose they could if they had somewhere to park close by. Yes. and and that might be an alternative we look at and try to assist them in that to uh accommodate that current addresses trailers. Yeah. Yeah. You can't have those type of things. I thought there was a time period, but anyway, I'm not going to leave my high dollar boat parked in Bubba's down the street.

That's not happening. So we we're taking out the the people with trailers from using the riverfront basically. Well, creating a business opportunity for somebody to build a secure area. You can go here. I'm all about that. Probably. I mean, you know, somebody's going to somebody's going to buy some land somewhere and put a fence around it and say you can park your boat here during this. Here's your key card. It's one of the places for to drop the trailer. You don't want to dropping the 18 trailer in your neighborhood. There's a place that they can go drop it.

All right, Gary. Unless there's pizza coming. All right. So, I guess y'all can sort of look at that and just see what the regulations is on that. And I'm not sure we can go against a regulation that's already in place. No. And and that's something that they look at and they change it. This will still come before you all in the meeting. This is just the work session. So, any of these items, if there's something violating another ordinance or anything like that, I don't think it will occur. Okay. How how how frequently should applicants take the orientation class? First time annually, first time only. This property owner receives several complaints. for a

A C orientation to orient. Yeah. You know, unless you need reorientation. Well, how are the complaints addressed? When they get complaints, they get, you know, three or more complaints, the it's revoked, right? The license is revoked. But if they get a complaint, is there a process for that to be addressed? No. So come in and

I mean we may we may reach out to him and explain the origin says about that particular infraction and kind of warn them like you know this is why you have to do XYZ and reach out to okay they don't know about you. So then that's why I go for a because if they get a complaint that's going to be addressed, right? So they to me, you know, why take the class again? They got a complaint, you all addressed it. So if you're on the second we'll contact you and let you know for

the only thing wrong we see is we don't know what several that's yes is it three or 10 don't it mention three somewhere you mentioned three in three their lices which would basically mean if They reapply then they have then right then they take class again. So so a body. Okay.

We got a uh should short-term rental advertisements only only be limited to companies that can be tracked by that's probably the only comment came from us. Okay. I think it should because Grand is monitoring and you don't want people advertising short-term rentals on Facebook, on Craigslist or any other platform that's not monitored by the city. But how do but how do you stop it? And do you have a right do you have that upon you without coming to the city? That's true.

I'm saying correct. But but they said they track like Facebook. So I think we live I don't know about Facebook but register for the first time in 2023 she said Facebook. So yeah I think that's a good point. I I'll just clarify on one you talked about before about the orientation class. It will just be when applications made or when it's approved, right? Instead of saying first time, that implies that like someone is knocked out of the system. It's not the first time I've done this upon another application.

Every time they're approved, they go, right? Yes. Okay. So, these other concerns here, do we need to go through those, Chad? Not necessarily. The burl mentioned that um that we should say and inspectors instead of the original inspector because it could be any number of inspectors that look at it. And then the second point came from Mr. Way and I think what he was saying is where the location should be from the center where we measure the radius from the center of that particular home. Am I correct?

Yeah. instead of like I guess between several properties, whatever, but look at the home that's being applied for and apply that center point from there for a,000 foot rate. Yeah. And uh lastly, we have to change of course the penalty for short-term rental to $500 is what I mentioned to you all. And that's each each time someone rents each each time a person violates an ordinance that terms not getting permanent. Okay. Like if we catch offend there's a state statute that limits whenever you violate.

So every time they violate the ordinance, not every time they get a complaint or something like that. Okay. But but if okay I don't have a license and I do a short-term rental 500 and then the next month I do another short-term rental that's another 500 spend 500 no different than any other violation that don't get a license you have a violation

and is that it and here's where I'm going okay if I can rent my house for 20 days and make $2500. Okay. So, do I just want to pay the $500 fine and just keep doing it because I'm coming out $2,000 in there. Yeah. They won't be able to do a short-term rental, but there are limits to what we can do. There are other ordinances that's like $100 per violation. This is a very this is a bigger that's a bigger issue.

That's if they if they decide to do that, we don't have any control over that anyway, right? And I don't have to go through any of this. I'll just $500. Yeah, I've been trying to help. Okay, there are other okay. Okay, Chad, so you want to wind this up where what we're going forward. Are you going to sort of summarize these what we talked about today and send them out to the commission to look at?

We'll highlight ones we made. And this is going to be on Tuesday's agenda. This is going to be on the December planning commission. Okay. Everybody got that? That's next week, right? Correct. Okay. I wondered that today. Okay. January. Anybody else got anything? Happy new year.