Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Now, is it just me or

that you've ever only on Thursdays, every other Thursday when you want to be using it? It's It's amazing. All right, I think we'll go ahead and get started. Excuse me. This is our uh April 23 Planning Commission public hearing. Can I start with roll call, please? David Box, Cruz, Brian Adams, Lur, Jonathan Hayek.

Great. Uh, we do not have many or any people in attendance here in person tonight, but is our one person online our applicant appellent, do you think? Um, it looks like there's a Sonia online and I would presume that to be our appellent.

Great. Uh, so then we don't have any public comment on things not related to tonight's agenda. So we'll go into our first item. This is for the record uh PL 20260055, an appeal of abandonment of legal non-conforming STR use. PL 2022 0525. Um, Sonia, if if you could raise your hand, we can unmute you and and uh if you're the applicant or appellent and and uh you can give us your uh presentation on your appeal. Hi there. Are you able to hear me? We are. Yes.

Great. Thank you. This will be pretty brief. Um the previous owner had a license um prior to us uh when we bought the unit. Um, we didn't realize that there had to be a renter in there for a for a consecutive 12-month period. There was a delay in us getting our license. So, I just presumed that getting a renter in our unit would start March of 2025, and we did have a renter in there in December. But when I reapplied, I found out that there had to be um a renter in there much earlier than we had anticipated. So, there was just some misalignment on expectations. I'm not sure if I need to explain that further.

Uh I mean, you're very welcome to elaborate if you want to or you can wait and we can ask you questions if we have any. It's it's really up to you. I'll wait for questions. Okay, great. All right. Well, thank you very much. Uh, and Rebecca, do you have a staff uh report or presentation for us as well?

I do have a real brief presentation I will pull up. I think I've seen that slide before.

Yeah. Um, okay. So, um, just real briefly, this property is located, um, at 3315 CVY Circle. It's unit 9002, and that is located in the short-term rental overlay zone C, which is the prohibited zone, often referred to as the red zone. Um, so to operate as a short-term rental in this zone, um, one of the requirements for eligibility for an STR license is that it had been registered as a legally non-conforming short-term rental. Um, and this property was. So, just as a reminder, um we do use our STR license process and the annual renewal process as the means by which we check um the status of legal non-conforming uses um over time to ensure that they have not been abandoned. I know you've all seen this slide as well, but this is CDC section 103D. This is the applicable language in the code that speaks to termination of legal non-conforming use status upon abandonment or discontinuence for a period of 12 consecutive months um regardless of any intent to resume operation of the use. the relevant timeline and and this is laid out in your staff report as well in a little more detail, but the relevant timeline for this property um is that in January of 2022, the property was registered as a legal non-conforming STR use. The prior owner did receive an STR license on June 15 of 2023 um as required by the STR code. Um, that prior owner also renewed that license a year later in July of uh I'm sorry, I believe that's a typo.

Those should either both be June or both be July. Let me just double check that. Um, I'm going to double check those dates because I just want them correct for the record. But either way, the license was renewed in 2024 by the prior owner. Um the last documented short-term rental stay that we have in um our possession ended on August 19th of 2024. Um we understand um based on public information that the current property owner and the appellant purchased the property on January 17th of 2025. Um they did fairly promptly submit an STR license application and that was renewed March 6th of 2025. Um and through our renewal process this year um we asked for prior booking reports to confirm the non-conforming status um was still current and that's when it came to light that there was a gap of over 12 months um between STR stays. So um again the the previous owner the last STR stay was August 19th 2024. The first STR stay that this current property owner conducted began on December 3rd, 2025. And you can see that that's a period of time that exceeds 12 consecutive months. Um so just in closing, um in accordance with section 103D, the legal non-conforming use was abandoned um immediately upon discontinuence of the use for a period of 12 consecutive months. and so does staff's interpretation and decision that the legal non-conforming status of this property terminated on August 19th of 2025. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Do we have any questions from planning commission? Two questions for Rebecca. One is it's my understanding that the planning commission's authority per the code is to confirm if we believe that staff or yourself followed code. our authority does not extend any further than that. Is that correct?

Um that would be correct. So the staff report includes the criteria for approval of a an appeal. Um there's two criteria. One is is the application complete. Um we've we agree the application was complete. It was filed within the 10day appeal period. And then the second reads um the opinion or interpretation of the appellant is more consistent with the CDC than the decision of the initial decision maker. So um if you feel that planning staff and myself as the director have aired in applying the code um then you would uphold the appeal and find in favor of the appellant. If you agree that we have interpreted the code as written consistently um then you would deny the appeal and uphold the initial decision.

Thank you. And then one more question is the the appellant in their submission and her and her comments stated my my um summary is when they bought the property um well let me restate that. If a individual purchase a property, does the 12-month period start over from the date of purchase or is it continuous and and ownership is not considered in that 12-month period? Does that make sense?

Yeah, absolutely. Perfect sense. Um, so ownership is not considered in the 12-month period. The um legal non-conforming status of the use runs with the land. So, it is completely separate from ownership. Um, and the use has to, you know, has to cannot be discontinued for that 12-month period in order for that to continue. And it can change hands any number of times. Thank you.

I have a question, but it's not wellformed in my brain, so be prepared for that. Um, what I'm trying to understand is the the they were given a license for a that's valid for a year, but realistically that that license was only valid for whatever it is 3, five months, whatever the the until the legal non-conforming status would have been could have been abandoned by like it's really only good for that amount of time unless they use it in that amount of And then if they use it in that amount of time, then it kind of extends. Otherwise, if they don't use it in those first few months, every stay after that is an illegal stay, even though they have an STR license. Yeah, technically that's correct. Although we don't typically, you know, we because we don't have a means to daily check up on every single legal non-conforming use to say, hey, are you still valid? Yes. No. Should we revoke the license? we use that annual renewal um process to check that. So like in this case technically yes I think that December stay we could say was in violation because that license would no longer have been valid. However, it is not our practice to take enforcement action against somebody in that kind of a circumstance.

Does that Yeah, it answers that question. I guess my followup to that is is is that something that could be considered that the license licenses that are um oh my gosh issued in these cases could state in the license that this is actually only good till this date unless it's used within those dates because it seems really confusing to me as a lay person that they have a license that's good for 12 years. I mean I understand the code around it. I I I'm totally apprised of that at this point, but it does seem confusing for someone who just like just purchased it. Is that something that seems too laborous or is there something I'm not seeing that would prevent that from going into the the license approval letter?

Yeah. So, I would say I don't think um I don't think that it would be impossible, excuse me, to note in the approval letter for the properties that are subject to legal non-conforming status. We could note that. However, I would not want to be in a situation where for every one of those approval letters, we would have to give a specific date. And I'll explain why. So um when a person submits an application, we're reviewing the information that they provide um through like there could be addition there could be stays occurring at that time like so it say it takes a week for us to review the application and write the approval letter. where we would have to pick it. We'd have to include a specific date based on the information we had. Meanwhile, there could have been another stay that occurred during that week. Meaning, we're sending a letter that has an incorrect date. Like, it would it's just like a constant rolling 12 months. And I wouldn't want staff to have to try to make sure that they have the exact correct to the day date to communicate something because it could literally change overnight before the letter goes out. Does that

Yeah. No, that's really helpful. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Any other questions? No. in the uh Rebecca in the packet the appellet um I think multiple times referenced uh was not her intention to abandon that it was unintentional abandonment. Does city staff or code anywhere um differentiate between intentional abandonment and unintentional abandonment?

Um no and in fact that's why I included that second slide. Um because I think um often and mo most often abandonment occurs unintentionally um and the code speaks to that quite clearly that it's regardless of the intent. Okay. Thank you. So, Rebecca, is it fair to say that the first reported stay is actually outside the window for the one year um of the legally non-conforming status. That yes, I believe that's correct.

So, it was already in violation. Um yes if technically it would be but that's as I mentioned we we're not seeking enforcement action for that. Right. Right. Right. So had this rented sometime in 2025 I guess. Well uh 225 26 uh had rented at all after that would that have been okay? But would she or would there had to have been some rectification of the legally non-conforming status? I don't think I understand apply or anything like that. The legally non-conforming status.

No, there's no legal non-conforming status runs with the land as long as this doesn't terminate. So, it was registered um and I apologize I haven't been able to pull up my files to correct the date, but it the legal non-conforming status of this property um was registered in 2022 after the adoption of the code. So, that is on record that that status would did and would run with the land as long as and until it is abandoned. Right. But it was abandoned. Was it abandoned prior to the purchase? No. Property was not.

No. The current property owner purchased in January of 2025 and abandonment did not occur until August of 2025. Right. Which is the one year from the last documented stay. Correct. And that was the previous owner. Correct. Okay. Any other questions? I have

one more question. I'm guessing you've had this conversation with Dan or with um legal um but does the city have any duty to notify or to otherwise educate owners of this legal non-conforming status being this separate thing outside of their STR license? Um do we have a duty? Is there any duty legally or like Yeah, I guess that's what I'm asking. Um I don't think we have any sort of legal duty or obligation. Um we have

codes and requirements that have been adopted by city council. They're accessible. Um, so I don't think that there's like a legal duty for us to notify individual property owners, but we certainly have taken a lot of steps and there's a lot of information on the website. There's also, you could see in the communication that came out um, subsequently the rainbow packet in response to Commissioner Box's question. Um, you know, oftent times through that initial license process, there's discussions because we have to ask for that booking report and when we have a new owner, they oftentimes have to get the booking information from the prior owner. So, there are conversations that occur. It's also covered in our STR license application guide. It speaks about what's required for legal non-conforming properties, that kind of thing. So, I do think there's a lot of information out there. Any other questions? Okay, we don't have any public still, so I will skip our public comment uh portion of this agenda item. Um, and Sonia, first I'll come back to you. Usually after uh public comment portion, we give the applicant a chance to um provide any final followup that they um had been meaning to add or or anything that came up. So, if you'd like to do so,

um, I appreciate the questions from the rest of the team. Um, that help really clarify my stance as well. My only question is just the confusion around when that 12 month period is because I understand 12 months from the last renter. I'm just wondering if there's some grace for when the license was renewed because there was a month gap from the city or so. And I you I maybe the grace I'm asking for is like you can presume that a new owner would like to do some things to the unit to make it better than the previous tenant. Those kinds of things. Um, and I realize I'm already getting brace by not being in the violation for the thing that I didn't know about before, but still, I'd like to ask the question.

Okay. Thank you. And, uh, Rebecca, any any uh followup from you as well? Um, no. I just I am going to try to pull up the dates because I would just like to make sure I I think there's a typo in the report and I want to get the date right on the record. Um, so I'm going to work on that. Um, and I guess I would just I don't I don't I didn't understand the month gap um comment by the appellent. So, if you if you're looking for a response to that, I don't I would probably need a little more information.

Yeah, maybe I can ask that while you're looking for that. Rebecca, um I did read something. Um Sonia, this is a question for you. uh in in some of the correspondence back and forth that there was some kind of question as to whether or not the rental was an October rental or a December rental and that the spreadsheet was mistaken. I think maybe in correspondence between you and Ms. Ross at the That is correct. That was a typo on my part for the October October rental and that still would have been out of conformance anyway. But is that why you're bringing up you you mentioned a month a month gap. Is that the month gap that you had been referring to or was it something else you meant?

Uh, I meant from when we originally got our license, um, okay, from what I recall, the previous owner's license and then there was at least 3 weeks before ours started. And that might be something, Rebecca, is that what you're looking at right now? something in the 2024 time frame. The it seemed like there was a June 15th and then it was July 15th. So somehow it's 13 months from the last. Is that what we're talking about?

Well, that's where I think I have a typo. So I want to I want to verify those dates. I I think I'm understanding uh Miss Broco to suggest that the owner's license Well, no. I I guess I still don't understand because licenses don't transfer with the sale. So, the prior owner renewed their license either in June or July of 2024, sold the property in January of 2025, and upon the sale, their license expired. And if I can clarify, and then a new one had been properly submitted for in February. Is that correct? Oh, yes, correct. Oh, maybe perhaps that's

I mean that's not a month where it was submitted. The application I believe was submitted on February 21st of 2025 and it was approved by the city on March 6th. So I don't know where the month is that we're talking about. Well, and just from my own clarification then the the point is almost moot because the 12-month time period goes from last use which was August. There was a shared information from the applicant when they got their June or excuse me their February or March, let's just say March 6th approved STR license. That was common knowledge by everybody on when the last use had been. and and so the date of the two was already very obviously um different from each other. Which was a a 12-month STR license and which was a 12-month lapsed period of use were not a month off, they were 7 months off. And that's okay because they were within 12 months. So the application was acceptable, but but there was really no confusion as to when the last time it had been used as an STR.

I believe that's correct. Um, okay. So, I did just was able to pull up the prior owner's license. So, again, I apologize for the typo. Um, the city issued their initial license on June 15th of 2023 and then renewed it on June 15th of 2024. So, that July date should be a June date. Okay. Okay. Well, like I said, that's kind of moot to our point because a new one had been done with the the new owner with Sonia with our current appellant anyway and that that would have been a legal um or proper new license on March 6th of 2025 anyway.

Right. I correct. I just don't like to have incorrect dates.

No, I appreciate that. I appreciate that. I just want to make sure that it's not affecting something that I'm not aware of. So, thank you for helping me understand the context. Uh and maybe just to follow up on um what Klay was talking about, it's had during the course of renewing the STR license at that point the applicant would or appellant would have reviewed the documents and it would somewhere it would have said legally non-conforming status is important and that you know it didn't actually say you should rent this by August. Um, but it said you need to make sure you have you don't have a 12-month gap. Is that fair to say in the application itself as in the guides for the SDR license?

Is it fair to say that we should get the information out? Is that what you're asking or I'm asking is it fair to say that the information is there? Oh, I believe the information is out there. Yes. Okay. That that's what Okay. Any other final questions? Then

I have one more for Sonia. Um Sonia, in the time since you purchased the property, um I mean it's clear that it didn't rent until the following December. Um, but is there anything that you did that you would consider using it as a like did you do remodels with the intention of turning it into like having it having it more prepared for renters? Did you do anything preparing it? You mentioned that and I'm just curious for one small reason.

Sure. It was just mainly predominantly clearing it out, clean, doing a deep clean, painting. We're not up there all the time. So, it did take some time to do that, but so it wasn't major rework. No. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions?

Sonia, can you kind of continue to walk me through your mindset of, you know, it's January 2025, you close on this property. Um, can you talk about was it your initial intent to use it as a short-term rental? Um, were you going to occupy it yourself because you know it did take 10 months, 11 months to eventually get that first short-term rental stay? So, can you just kind of provide some color on what your mindset was at that time of purchase?

Sure. Our main use for for that condo is to use it ourselves and rent it out the minimum required for the short-term rental license, which I believe is 10 days. So, is that answering your question? Yeah. Yeah, it does. Great. Any other questions? Okay, then I'll uh kind of close our public portion and I'll come to us commissioners for discussion and motion.

Um I' always like to reiterate that I really hate these appeals. Um it's just they're difficult. Um most of them u have the same foundation. It's a can be a confusing process. Uh you have to pay attention. Um, and the reality is this is a business and you need to follow the rules and that's what this is all about. I also hate these appeals. They're really hard for me. the when it's very clear. Um we've had some come in front of us that it was very clear in all of the communication what needed to happen, when it needed to happen by um how it needed to happen. There was so much conversation around it and I feel like the city did an incredible job of educating that specific person maybe above and beyond what was necessary. Um, this one's harder, a lot harder for me because I don't think it was as clear in the process. And I understand that there were other there was other documentation that should have been read like the guide and whatnot and the website and all of that, but it's just trying to put myself in a lay person's shoes who just bought an STR rental for the very first time. This one's really hard for me. Um, and it feels very harsh every time that something like this comes across and it's clear that they just didn't understand it. The code is also extremely clear like what we're trying to do on an appeal. And um I think the the thought process that I went through this time was a little different um than it has been before. And so I just kind of want to share it. Um because I looked up the definition of legal non-conforming use and then the definition of use in general because

there's this breakdown like well I'm I'm I'm doing this work to keep the license current and doing what I think I need to do to keep my STR current in every way paying the taxes doing all the things. but I didn't actually have someone stay there. So, I think that there's maybe this breakdown in like I'm I'm keeping the use current. I I am not abandoning the use because I have this license and I even like went so far as to look up like legally has this gone to courts like have has abandonment gone to courts have have have has a judge decided that to use it you actually have to have a person stay there versus just keep all the licensing um up to date and do all the things you need to keep to keep the business up to date. And it's debatable. Um, it's gone both ways in courts actually. And so that's where I kind of not got lost, but I just went down this like rabbit hole of thought like why is use in this case specifically actually having someone stay there versus keeping the business alive by keeping it licensed? And I don't know. I know that in every other case that we've seen these appeals, we've interpreted it one way, but I do think that it's incredibly confusing for people who are just walking into an STR. Um, I had one other point, but I can't think of it, so I'm just going to stop talking for a minute.

I think L said it very well is this is really hard. It is a business and the rules you have to follow. The code is very clear. Rebecca, you provided 103D, which says regardless of any intent, and I I can't go against that. I I I don't think we can assume intent. No, you can't. I mean, on this I what I would assume the fact is you've got um this is an illegal rental that is listed. The legally non-conforming status had already passed. when this was rented. So, it was in violation.

I'm going to I'm going to clarify that because it'll break my brain if I don't I don't really disagree with you, but the the the fact of the matter is the the license was active based on it was it was allowed to be active. So, when you talk about like an illegal use or legal stay or something like that, it was within the window of the active license that had been activated legally. the license wasn't enough for the legal non-conforming use to stay um active

active. But that doesn't like put the use itself automatically it doesn't put it against the STR that has been that's being done in in that license if that makes sense when you're talking about legal or not like th this well I the way I I interpret this this should could not have been rented because legal non-conforming status was more than a year and it was abandoned. It was actually I mean it was abandoned. So if it was abandoned as it is now, you couldn't have someone stay there.

I think you're actually speaking to my point earlier that I feel like that's extremely confusing for the license holder because

they didn't if they didn't perfectly understand the 12-month. I mean, I think we've seen multiple appalants appellants um appellants um people here for appeals kind of have that aha moment listening to the hearing like they finally got when the 12-month period even happened. So I I feel like that and that always like breaks my heart a little bit because it's clearly wasn't obvious to them and if they have a license in their hand that says that they can do this STR for these number of dates I think it's confusing that really they they couldn't they had to do it in these dates whatever those happen to be I completely understand Rebecca's point about why it would be difficult for staff to hone in on those dates but I think it's really confusing

I don't Oh, no. I I mean that's been the case since day one. Uh I think we've have made it people more aware. And the reality is there are 2400 STRs out there and we handle how many appeals. Um I think this is the 10th 10th over 2400. Yeah. um seems to be a minor fraction of not unpainful thing but it is a very small percentage. Everybody else seems to get it right.

The other thing to that I think is important that that you consider as well is whether or not they're having an aha moment here as I just pulled up just a

my own visual. The email correspondence that's shared with us in this rainbow item and and in the other ones as well show that this is not the first time they've been told this information. It's documented on when Paula in this case shared that same information. And so aha moment being seen or not, this is not the first time they're hearing it in proper explanation, proper uh clarification. Uh, so I don't think we can really let that sway what's been followed or not simply because we see when the aha moment happened. It's not the first time they've been given the opportunity to know the information.

Can you read what you're talking about? Cuz I looked through and didn't find like a um very good explanation of in this one. I we I think that we're doing better and better and we've seen ones where it was very clear. Um, no, I'm not going to point you to one on here, but that's that's entirely the point is every single one that you're talking about in the past that we're seeing the correspondence between the appellent. They're not they're not in the dark until this meeting that this is not the first time they've they've had a conversation with somebody at the city who's been trying to point out what the issue has been. Yeah, I don't know if that I necessarily agree with you on this particular one, but yeah, I I know what you're talking about. Ryan, Rebecca has a point to make. Would you be okay with her making that?

Oh, sure.

I just Thank you. I appreciate that. Um I know you're in your discussion, but Commissioner Cruz made a few comments that I just feel like are really important to address on the record. Um so I appreciate like the discussion about um does maintaining a license maintain the legal non-conforming use? Is that operating the use? And um because there was a lot of discussion about legal non-conforming status during the development and the adoption hearings that I mean like over a year of work that we put into drafting that code. Um and at that time we actually amended the legal non-conforming use section. So, we amended section 103D um to carve out explicitly for what we termed intermittent uses because it was acknowledged that short-term rentals are also possibly someone's primary residence. They are also possibly someone's vacation home. It and and when the owner is residing in that home, we aren't considering it a short-term rental. It is owner occupied. So there was a lot of discussion and that's why that language is written explicitly about intermittent uses and why we extended the legal non-conforming abandonment period from 6 months to 12 months because knowing that the use isn't used isn't going to be used on a short-term rental basis 365 days a year. Um city council felt that it was appropriate to give a longer period of time to allow that use to be used in that intermittent fashion. So I just um you know I I think it was very intentionally written. It was acknowledged at the time and it was very well understood that having a license was not operating the use. It was it's holding a license. Operating the use

means it has to actually occur. The use has to occur because advertising is also talked a little bit. You know advertising without a license is a separate violation um than using it. So even just advertising it did not constitute maintaining the use. Thank you. Thank you. Could you also just for the sake of adding wonderful information um could you speak to the point that I'm trying to make with Lou which is the difference between what is a legal use within a 12-month period of an active STR license as opposed to a use that is too far away to contribute to a a legal non-conforming an active or

yeah in the 12-month we're uh not abandoning a use.

Yeah. So, I would say um if we had a means to perfectly know when a legal non-conforming use abandoned on the day and we could revoke a license, we would do so. We can't do that. We have an annual renewal process. That's really the only way that we're going to be able to um like sort of check in on the legal non-conforming status. aside from like perhaps like in this particular case the property sold so that license expired the new owner had to obtain a license. So again that was like a midyear check sort of right because we had to have the new owner provide those booking reports to determine that they were even eligible to apply for a new license. So those are sort of you know initial license um and at the annual renewals are where we have the ability practically to check on the non-conforming status. So I c I think maybe not maybe I want to get technically speaking commissioner to probably correct. However, we did not revoke the license, which is why I said earlier, we aren't going to see typically seek enforcement action against somebody who happened to have a a rental beyond the 12 months, but still within their license period. Um, because we're going to sort of it's going to come to light at the next renewal, and that is when we take we make the decision. I mean, this is no, they're all this way, right? Most often there is some sort of an after the 12-month um stay. Um we do, you know, we catch the dates at the next renewal and then we go through this process. So, um

I kind of want to say you're both right, but there that doesn't really work. No, that does that that's no worry at all. I just didn't think that there was anything in the STR license information that says that your 12-month license is nullified upon 366 days from the last active rental. Like there's nothing in the license that says it's nullified at a certain time. It's just that it can't be renewed after Yeah, I would say it's expired, right? And so while it's active, there's nothing that says that it's immediately inactive. How dare you advertise, right?

Yeah, I would say that that is I I would agree with you. um and right the eligibility to renew or to obtain a license goes away upon abandonment. Now um you know in a in a prior case that we heard you did see where when we sent the license approval letter we were very specific and we did say that that license will terminate upon abandonment. Um that was because that was such a like tight window that we didn't want that property owner to move ahead and operate for an entire year if that if if if that really wouldn't shouldn't be occurring and that's why we sort of took that extra step because it we were talking about a matter of days. Um but I just don't think that Yeah. So, I I think you've seen us do that, go that extra step, but I don't think that that is always the appropriate way to go.

And it might be um it Thank you. I appreciate all that. I mean, it's contextual, but it doesn't necessarily sway what I think maybe your general point was. Anyway, just when we were talking that that December use, I wasn't looking at it as, oh my god, can you believe they did that? that that wasn't um illegal or or yeah, illegal, which felt very strongly worded, you know, and I was just kind of clarifying that point. So, thank you for letting me do that.

Uh it was um I think there's no doubt this is confusing. Uh in the in the perfect world, a red flag would be raised every time there's a violation of a legally non-conforming status and then someone would take the red flag and say, "Oh my god, let's contact someone and tell them that they have a red flag. could you please fix it? But we don't have that red flag. I don't know if we can get a red flag like that. I think it'd be nice because this it's not just these two dates. You've also got tax day. You got to pay your taxes. So, you got three dates that aren't connected whatsoever. And but we don't have that. And uh that would require a lot of effort. And as indicated this this is a very small portion of of an issue. I don't love the small portion of a bunch of people argument is

no I I and the only reason is because I think that that what we see the majority of those people are operating their STR it's an STR and then the people that we see are the people who live there or it's their second home and they only do this periodically. So I don't think it's that everyone else understands it and these 10 people don't get it. it's that no one else cares and they never bump into it because they operate it all year round. So, it's I don't think it's that everybody else understands it perfectly and so everyone should understand it perfectly. That's that argument falls flat for me. But I think that I I get that it's only a few people that are operating it this way. I I believe that

I and that's I mean I think that's that's a fair it's a it's a fair comment. Um it um you also find I think if you don't have one of the five companies, four companies, three companies, whatever it is, the property managers that do take care of those kinds of businesses, you will fall through the cracks. There's a better chance, a better chance that you will fall through those. I don't know if I agree with that. There's so many operators of short-term rentals in this town, small and large, that follow the rules and know the rules. I I don't know if I agree with you on that. Okay.

And just to be fair, like I I can't stop this appeal. It it the staff's interpretation of code I think is is correct. But I do think that as much as we've done, I think that this is pretty devastating for the people that it happens to and I think that talking about it and maybe somebody will come up with a way that we can do this a little bit better and I would love to see that happen, a way that feels better for these few people. I don't know what that is, but I think it's worth talking about because I think it's pretty catastrophic for some people that we've seen. So, I just think that it's worth talking about the talking points. Yeah,

it is tough because I agree with you on the catastrophic level and I agree with you from an empathy level and not wanting something to happen to somebody else that that is not what they wanted and and seeing their mistake become catastrophic for them. But that being said, I I do think that that Lou's earlier point is is the reality of it. And even though I I might feel really bad for them through them, empathize to them, um it doesn't change the fact that that that's the responsibility with trying to operate a a business, any business, including this. And I've been trying to come up with the perfect analogy that is also a license like this. And I'm thinking like liquor licenses and somebody opening a restaurant being like, "I didn't know you had to get a liquor license." And us empathizing with them and being like, "Oh, well, they shouldn't have known. How could they have known?" That's not really the right

Yeah. analogy, but but it's it's more akin to that, which is kind of if you're going to open a restaurant, you should know that you're probably going to need, you know, like uh what's the the food um safety stuff? You're going to need the liquor license. Like you've got certain things that that that's your responsibility if you're going to do this. And that's way less empathetic about it. But I think it's more what the code is is getting at is kind of if you want to do this in the red zone, you need to keep up on it. You need here's how you can keep up on it. Here's it all spilled out and you need to. And if you didn't, well, we're not opening the liquor. We're not running the restaurant, you know, kind of a thing. And and I think that that's where we really end up at the end of the day. Empathy or not. And not that I don't have the empathy, but sure

it doesn't govern this decision as to how I think as you already said as to how we already um I think can see that staff interpreted the code correctly. Yeah. Right. I think that the the difference there is that those are rectifiable and this is not like there is no there is no grace whatsoever in any of our code in any of our rules. And I don't know if that's the way it should be. I know the way it is and I know that I have to vote based off of the way it is written. Um, but if I were on city council, I would be asking, should we look at this and create some way to create grace? I don't know. But I'm not on city council.

I like the benefit of remembering when we did talk about the conversations and the fact that that's the difference between a green zone, a yellow zone, and a red zone is that this is in a red zone, which means from a policy standpoint, no, we don't want this to exist. Whereas whereas like with the rectifiable thing, it's rectifiable when in the green zone, even for STRs, if you didn't do the thing, there might be some kind of penalty like a liquor license. And I'm not going to try and again, sure, analogies. Is analogy a word? I don't think that's for

um but but there is something rectifiable. But in the red zone, we're saying this really shouldn't be here. And it can because it was legal at a certain point, and we're allowing that to carry on as long as it's legally continuing to carry on. But it shouldn't be happening here. And so that's why they don't have that rectifiable from a policy standpoint. Sure. I I had suggested an empathy factor, but uh the chairman uh told me that that was not allowed. Oh, yeah. One other time. You can't you can't vote based on empathy. Yeah. No empathy. No. Yeah. What were you doing? I'm not even sure what he just said, but let's keep going. Okay.

Good. Um, any discussion or a motion or anything? Uh, I'll motion to approve staff's recommendation for PL 2025 2026. I have a point of order. I think your motion is to recommend denial of the appeal. Yeah, just reading. Well, that's the staff recommendation. want to approving their recommended motion is maybe more complicated than just stating their motion if that's okay. Okay. Recommending motion if that is what you

Yes, I am. Um, making a motion to approve plane department's recommendation for denial of a PL 202600055 and upholding the planning director's decision of legal non-conforming status. Second. I'll take that. Thank you for the motion and a second. Any final discussion? Okay, I'll call for a vote. I I I I All right, that motion passes unanimously. Sunny, thank you for your time.

Uh that is it for agenda items for us this evening. Do we have a director's report? I have nothing for you tonight. Thank you. We also have no old business. Uh so I think we're ready to adjurnn. Anybody want to make a motion to adjurnn? So moved. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. All in favor? I I And we're adjourned at 549. Job is to second the adjournment.