Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Yeah.

architect. I'd like to

The Stillwater Planning Commission meeting of April 21st will now come to order. It will be the process this evening to call for items on the agenda. The commission will hear briefly from staff first, then the applicant and/or their representative, then open the public hearing and hear from those in favor and/or in opposition of the request. When you come to the podium, please clearly state your name and address for the record. Then, before closing the public hearing, both staff, the applicant, and/or their representative will be provided an opportunity to respond and to provide additional information and answer questions. After all interested parties have spoken, the public hearing will be closed and then we will hear closing remarks and alternatives from staff. The first item on the agenda under public hearings is to receive public comment regarding a text amendment to chapter 23 and we shall hear from staff first.

Yes, ma'am. Good evening, chair, commissioners. My name is Henry Bubbleheimer with development services and tonight we're looking at a text amendment for short-term rentals. Um you can see the title has a long list of sections that are being changed and added. Um we'll be going through each of these individually one at a time, but um generally we're repealing the short-term rental ordinance the way it's written now and then we're creating these seven sections. Um some of which are similar to what's in code now, some of which are basically new. So we'll go through that. Um, one thing to mention on the short-term rentals is the focus of the short-term rental rewrite was enforcement um, and compliance. So, one of the ways we're going to do that is we're working with we're in conversations with multiple of the top um, software companies for short-term rental licenses um, that work with municipalities. So, they would basically data mine our city to find all the short-term rentals within the city, find the property owners of those short-term rentals, and then all the ones that do not have a license, we would then be able to send those notices out, um, notices to get people to become compliant. Um, so that's kind of something we'd be working on in conjunction with this. Um, so yeah, we'll walk through this starting with this 15.1 definitions. So, we're starting off light. We're just adding a few definitions for property manager, property owner, subject property revocation and denial. And 115.2, we're just clarifying that short-term rentals would be permitted in all zoning districts. Um, with that clarification that they're permitted in all zoning districts, um, we move on to section.3, which is license required compliance with applicable codes. Um, under this section, it does clarify that short-term rental short-term rental licenses are required in all zoning districts. Right now, they're only required in RSS, RSL, and RT. Um, so this would require short-term rental licenses in all zoning districts. Um, those last two bullet points go over that no person shall operate a short-term rental license in any property not approved for residential occupancy, meaning you can't rent out

the camper parked in your front yard or the shed in your backyard. Um, it's just the actual house that is approved for residential occupancy. That last point just goes over that no person shall engage in a short-term rental without complying with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. It's relatively self-explanatory. So, moving on to section 115.4, we get into the application form and the process. This is where we get into more of the meat of the short-term rental update. Um, we gets into the application requirements. So, before a short-term rental license application would be considered complete, we would require that they submit a proposed occupancy limit, copy of house rules, um the property insurance, which would be required to be at least 100,000 for a house, um the parking availability, and the contact information for the property manager as well as a 24-hour contact, which must be available within 1 hour of any issue or complaint. Um, additionally, we have the screening process, which is, you know, how the applicant will be screening the guests that would be staying there, as well as the floor plan. Um, these would all be required to be added to the application. A lot of these are um will probably sound familiar to you. It's a lot of the requirements that have been required whenever a short-term rental license comes before you for a public hearing. These are things that the planning commission has liked to see. We've went ahead and incorporated those as requirements. So next we have section 115.5 which is denial, revocation, notice and hearing and complaint process. Um so this section sets the reasons that the development services director can deny or revoke a short-term rental license. Um it explains it yeah sure explains how complaints um can be submitted to code enforcement. It creates the appeals process. The appeals process would be the development services director which would be approving or denying the short-term rental licenses because this would be becoming administrative. Um, which we'll get to in just a second as well. Um, so it would be development services director which can be appealed to the city manager's office which could be appealed to planning commission which

could then be appealed to city council. So there's the multiple levels of appeals there. Um, after the approval there's a list of what needs to be posted in the short-term rental unit. So, this is similar similar to the requirements in the last page of what's required to be in the application, except you would actually have to have a sign in your short-term rental that has your house rules. It has your occupancy limit. It has your 24-hour contact information. So, it just has those requirements that have to be hung in the short-term rental unit itself. Um, and these last two is that we are removing the 300 foot notice requirement and we're removing the public hearing process. So, the 300 foot notice requirement. Right now, the process is that when a short-term rental license is applied for, we send notices to everyone within 300 foot of the property. Um, when there's an objection letter that is submitted, we schedule it for public hearing. It comes before a planning commission to make that decision on whether to approve or deny. Um, up until now, no short-term rental license has been denied by city council. Um, there has been the one that was recommended deny by planning commission that was appealed. Um so with that we've went ahead and made this an administrative process while incorporating all the concerns that neighbors had um that were brought up during that public hearing. So next we we have covenants deed restrictions and overlay requirements. This is basically just saying that the this text amendment is not intended to conflict with any of your existing covenants deed restrictions or lease agreements. So if in your covenants for your neighborhood right now it says no short-term rental license in this neighborhood that still applies. This would not conflict with that. And lastly, I don't say lastly because we're almost done. I say lastly because it's the last section. Um, we have seven, which is penalty, which just clarifies that not following this code. For example, not having a short-term rental license would be considered a class C offense. A class C offense does have a maximum fine of $100 per day.

500

500, which is what I meant to say, of course. Okay. So, next we have kind of a discussion topic for you. That's the summary of the short-term rental text amendment that was submitted to you that was on the agenda. Um, one thing we wanted to talk about tonight. Um, which is why I'm sure you guys noticed we first published the agenda with a memorandum to table this item and then we did an amended agenda with the staff report and the presentation or the staff report and we did are doing a presentation um because we weren't sure how to handle this last item. Um, so we have a recommendation, but we wanted to kind of give you guys the opportunity to discuss how best to handle the density of short-term rentals. Um, so this is kind of a discussion point that will lead to the public hearing. Um, so up on your screen, we have a map of all the existing short-term rentals that are licensed within the city. That's approximately 167 short-term rental licensed. I know it doesn't look like that many dots. It's pretty zoomed out. Um, so these are only the ones that are currently licensed and a license that's only required in the RSS, RSL, and RT district. We do predict that with the if this short-term rental license, if the text amendment were to be approved, there would be more licenses that would be applied for. So, this number would increase. Um, but the way it currently sits, this is the density that we're looking at. Um, and one of the density the ways to measure the density that we've been looking at is a maximum percentage of a block. Um, so that would be a block could either be a platted block or if it's an unplatted parcel, it's just surrounded by roads would be considered a block. Um, and the way we have it currently written is on the screen. Again, this wasn't on the text that was provided to you or that was posted with this agenda, but it is written and provided to you in paper. Um, basically what we're looking at, I'll go ahead and read it and then we'll go over it. The maximum amount of short-term rental licenses issued in the small lot single family RSS or large lot

single family RSL residential zoning district shall not exceed 20% of the total dwelling units located within any block. For purposes of calculating the maximum number of permitted short-term rentals on a block, any fractional result shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. No additional short-term rental licenses shall be issued once the maximum allowed allowable number of licenses has been issued unless an existing license is surrendered, revoked, or otherwise becomes inactive. So, if we're looking back at this map, if that previous text were added to the text amendment, there are three neighborhoods right now that are would be over that 20%, they would be considered non-compliant. I say neighborhoods, I mean blocks. There are three blocks that would be considered non-compliant. Now, what that means is those blocks would be grandfathered in. We're not taking anyone's license away, but no new new licenses could be issued in those blocks. Hope to answer any questions if you have any.

Yeah. How did you how did you come up with that? I mean, 20% is that based on other places that Sorry. Yes.

Yeah, that's a good point. Um, so we kind of started with um, like I said, we were looking at the concerns the neighbors brought forward and one of them that we didn't address with the application requirements was the neighborhood compatibility or the neighborhood character. Um, so we're like, what's a way we can protect the neighborhood character, which is a concern that neighbors have brought forth multiple times. Um, and this was one of the many ways that other cities have done something similar. So, for example, in um in Broken Arrow, they have a 300 foot rule where no short-term rental license can be approved within 300T of an existing short-term rental license. Um in other cities, they have caps of like in your large lot single family zoning district, you it has to be an owner occupied unit. Um so, it can't be like outside investor. Um so, there are different cities have dealt with this differently. We are just trying to look at in our local context what could we do that would not majorly disrupt what is already happening.

And if I may, if that's okay, there are cities that do this percentage as well. And we were trying to keep it where it's actually where we can monitor this and enforce it and not make it too complicated for applicants to understand where they can be or for staff to process. And so the whole if we make changes, we want to be able to enforce the changes. So, does that just apply to residential zoned areas or does that apply to all areas only RSS and RSL? RS as proposed. Since we don't know the other areas that have short-term rentals, they may exceed that, but they're not in the residential. So, we're fine. We're trying to protect more of the neighborhoods

or or it could be I mean, it could be multif family because multif family isn't listed in here. Yes, ma'am. So, higher density. Yeah. apartments or RT residential two family. So, your duplex neighborhoods, this would not apply to. It would only be those single family neighborhoods. Um, that could of course be modified. We're looking for feedback and discussion on this item, but the way it's written, it would just be the two single family neighborhoods. And as it's written, there is no difference in requirements or regulations for owner occupied versus non-owner occupied STRs. It's all under the same requirements. Correct. That is correct. Okay.

It was also and we did consider that as an option. It would just be I believe difficult for staff to be able to prove owner occupied versus non occupied. We kind of looked at the overlay district we currently have and the difficulties we have in enforcing that and try to apply that same concept here. And we also are thinking this is a good test run and we can always come back and make modifications as needed. If you know we we are rewriting chapter 23 and if this doesn't work we can make changes at that time or even sooner if needed. How is a block defined? I have that. So I have it. I wrote it down. She has the words. I do. It's

it's in 237 and um it is a continuous group of lots separated by streets rights of way. also a continuous group of lots comp comprising a portion of a platted subdivision used for identification purposes. So if it's platted, those are blocks are numbered. Every block is numbered lot and blocks. And if it's unplatted, then you go for the first part, the continuous group of lots separated by streets of rides away.

Okay, I just want to make sure I'm understanding that correctly. So a block is a block of street in between two streets and then if there is a right of way say alley in between houses that back up to each other that would make make that two separate blocks within that square block of streets. Okay, I missed that. Sorry. Was that Were you saying that an alley splitting it down the middle would create two different blocks? Correct. Correct.

Mhm. interpreted that differently. Yeah, I asked the question. I mean, you've thought about this maybe a hundred times longer, more than I have, so I feel a little bit odd asking questions, but um you know, I'm thinking about it from from somebody's standpoint that's applying and how would they know whether they could apply? The distance seems to be an easier one in my mind than than percentage of a block. But I I mean, I could be wrong about that. Certainly.

I I I kind of like the percentage because the lot sizes change between RSS and RSL and so your density changes. Yeah. And if you're trying to preserve the character of a neighborhood um owner occupied or full-time lease, there's going to be more of a presence in the neighborhood. So, I mean, we've had a wide variety of um different viewpoints from neighbors

where something has has come in and they've come in and and some have complained about empty houses, some have complained about whether uh properties are kept up a certain way or not. Um, I think for the neighbors that want to see activity and want to get to know people living around them, 20% um, short-term rental, having that change over happen periodically isn't going to be quite as disruptive as if you were in a more compact neighborhood and you were doing 300 ft. So, I that's why I I think the 20 is a great starting point. Um I I think back to uh some of the more traditional neighborhoods I've lived in in Still Water. Um and it seems like roughly you've got five homes per block the way we've described block tonight. So if you looked at one in five on a on a one stretch of a block was an STR and then you'd have to go across the street or down another block or the backside to have another STR. I think it's enough that would appeal to the need that we have and the interest level of um the public that wants to stay in an in a in a short-term rental when they come to Still Water and um still be able to preserve the neighborhood. So, I think it's a tough balance for Still Water to find there. There's certainly a need, there's a desire, there's a demand for this service. Um, I I like I like not having to have an owner occupied unit because again I think the demographic of Stillwater that would make it really difficult and I don't think we could meet the demand for this for this doing that. Um, I I really like what we've got here. I think this is a great starting point. I like the fact that it's only for RSS and RSL that RT and RM don't have the same type of percentage because

I I think in RT and RM there's a whole different vibe to your to your neighborhood so to speak. Um there's there's it's more transient in RT and RM even with the density. So I I I think this is a great place to start. So, I um I'm sure there's some more questions, but I'll just say I really commend staff for the work you guys have done on this. I know it's been a long time coming. We have nashed our teeth over this and and beat our chest on this for couple of years or so. Um so, I I I think this this is is a wonderful way place to start and I'm really happy with where we've arrived. So, I'll I'll yield the floor to anybody else. Can we ask questions about other parts of the document?

Yes sir. Of course you can. So let's see where it talks about let's see 23 115.4 point4 bullet 8 that screening process for guests rentals within 500t radius of schools and so forth talks about additional screening through the sex offender registry and accords. So what are we saying there? You're saying that that has to be part of the process that the owner has to go through to screen. Yes, sir. Okay. So, how do is there a way to know they did that or there's not? Okay. So, you just have to say you got to do this. Yes, sir. Okay.

And if we come to find out the city confirms that they did violate that, they can be revoked. Okay. Okay. Do they have a ability to do that through apps such as Airbnb or VBO or will they be individually responsible for doing that? I don't know if that's an option on the apps. I know that it is a publicly searchable registry. Okay. Um the sex registry is something you can publicly search and when you're applying for a rental at Airbnb, it has the name of the person staying there. Um, so I don't know for sure if it's an option you can turn on, but I know it is something that can be publicly searched. It's readily accessible for the owner to have to do that. Okay. Yes, sir.

And then on 23115.7 under penalty, the last the last sentence I think it's Yeah, the last sentence says each day a short terminal is operated in violation of this division constitutes a separate offense. So, does operated in mean that it's available for rent or that it's being rented? I would think that it's being run as a short-term rental. So, so being listed on Airbnb site is available is not operation. I think it it would be. Yes, it would be. Every day that they're they are operating a business out of that home, which is advertising that's available. Whether it's rented or not, it's operating. Okay. And so, that could add up quick. Can it can

Yeah. Do I think practical practically we'll be doing that? Most likely not. But if you know you're given a citation or notice and you continue to ignore then it would progress more citations could be real dollars pretty quick.

Can we circle back to that screening question real quick? So the way that this is written, the way I'm reading it is saying that they are required to screen the guests, but it is not saying anything about, okay, a guest came up on that sex offender list. You are now required to not rent. It just says that you just have to screen them. It doesn't say that you can't rent to anyone based off of what your screenings. Can you remind me what section that's in? result 115.4 115.4 bullet point 8. Does that make Do you see understand what I'm saying? It's not saying anything regarding

who you can or can't rent to. It's just saying you have to screen them. Yeah. No, I it I I you are correct. It is just saying you have to screen them. It's not saying you can't rent it to them. Was it written intentionally that way to not say that they can or No, that wasn't intentional. It was not intentional. So the intention is to say that if someone pops up on that list, right, you're not going to be able to rent to them. Yes.

And then for the first part where there's a prior to the daycare section where it's just outline of the screening process for the guest to the rental property, is that just saying we want you to screen them and then it's up to your judgment? Not you have to have a fourstar guest staying there or a fivestar guest staying there or anything along those lines. So, sorry, question for Kim on your last point. Um, in the last sentence of suboint A where it says in accordance with uh title 57 section 581 like referring to the state law. Yes. Yes.

Is that the section that would say that if they're on the registry you're not allowed to rent to them located within that many feet? So, if you're on a sexender registry you cannot be residing or staying within 500 ft of a school. So if they're on that registry, they can't rent that property if it's 500 ft of the school. So then it is implied within the writing of this. Yes. Okay. And sorry. And then your last point was that about the general screening. Yeah. And then about the general screening is just saying we want you to screen your guests, but after you screen them, it is up to your interpretation whether or not you want to rent to them.

And screening process also is not just are you a convicted sex offender. It's the screening process. Like you always ask members, ask the applicants, what are you screening them for, their history? Are they a good like star raider renter? Correct. Are are you renting um to someone that's 18? Are you rent that type of process? We want to know what their screening process is. And for them, sometimes it just makes them think about it. Kind of like when we're here in public hearings, once you raise those questions, they realize, oh, those are good thoughts. Of course, I want my house to be staying nice, so I don't want to rent to a whole bunch of 18-year-olds cause a party.

Yeah. And to your point though, the screening doesn't have minimum requirements. So, we're not requiring them to have certain screening things. We're just requiring them to submit a screening plan, have a process of screening. Okay. So, the only the only requirement that the city is saying is that short-term rental needs to meet the same um sex offender, right, limits as permanent residency. Correct. Okay. and we just want to see a process of your of your screening. Thank you for clarification on that.

Yeah. And just to make sure the screening is two different things. So you have the screening for the sex offender registry and the screening for all of your guests. So they're two different screening requirements. Any other questions for staff?

Yeah, a quick one. the um when you showed up on the screen the map of all the STRs in the city. Where is that map available online? It's not available online at this time. Um that's just an internal map. It's something that we could potentially make available online with the software that we're looking at um purchasing. Um but at this time that's just an internal map. I think it would be a good idea to have that map available to people who are looking to Mhm. apply for an STR so they know they're in an area where they would be above that 20% limit.

Yes. And that was I believe Commissioner Prather's question that I forgot to answer earlier was how would someone know? Um and your answer is at this time you wouldn't know. Um if we do get a map together like this that we can make available online. It's something you could check. Um, but at this time, the only way you would find out if you were looking at purchasing a property or making it a short-term rental would be to call the city and we can confirm for you, unless we can do something like this and make it public, which we would want to do. So, well, and I and I think to your earlier point, that's only showing the ones that currently have um a license through the city. there anything anything anything outside of RSS and RSL

would not even show up on that map because they're not required currently to have a license but after this comes into place then we would need to city needs to advise that this needs to happen for those other zonings in addition with the software to increase the enforcement to bring more people into compliance we are predicting that there are existing short-term rentals that are not compliant that would be brought into compliance so this map I think would look very different in 6 months time. And you're you're working with those providers to find the people that are not compliant and then the city will be reaching out to the non-compliance or the provider will be reaching out to the non-compliance.

One of those two. Yes. It depends on what package with the city purchases, but they'll be contacted as a courtesy at first. Let them know this is what has the changes. You're not registered. Appears that you're operating Yeah, you know, come into compliance. So, you have the locations of the properties. Could you highlight the block that's now full so they would know this block is is completely full rather than having determined, oh, that's 20% or that's not 20%. Oh, yes. I was going to highlight for you guys right now, but yes, in in the map we made publicly available online, I think that's a great idea. I believe there's only three blocks. There's three right now that are currently maxed out

and they would be grandfathered in. So they would be fine, but no one else could apply in that block. And then if one of those becomes inactive, they would not be replaced. They wouldn't be replaced. Correct. Even with the same owner. And no, once it's once it's out, it's out. It's out. Unless that brings it below the 20% then someone could be could go back in. But yeah, to get to the Okay, very good. I guess just a curiosity as you as you've talked to other places that have a rule like this, it seems like it could have the I'm not saying it's positive or negative, but the unintended effect of changing the property values based on how close you are to 20%.

That hadn't come up, but I that that could be a fair point. Yeah. Can you elaborate on that a little bit more? Location. Yeah. If I if I'm an investor and Um, I'm considering a property, then I I can't I can't buy a property where it's close that's going to put it over 20%. Right?

Because what's the point of that if I'm trying to to do a short-term rental or that I have a property and it is a short-term rental and I want to sell it and I'm right at that cusp and I'm I'm the one that that propertyy's at 20%. So where you are relative to that 20% can have some impact on the value of that property based on an investor standpoint. I don't think I'm not saying it's positive or negative. I'm just saying

right. You're saying it's it's just a thing. I don't I don't necessarily see it having a hu I think it might just take out out of town buyers that are willing to offer a higher price, but like you said, neither high or good nor bad. Just a thought. I think I think probably just another factor that would impact location. Yeah. Because I mean a lot a lot of short-term rentals are successful because of their locations, right? Yeah. So I think you have to be a wiser buyer if you're buying a property. Absolutely. You need to be a wiser. Yes. You better check. You better check the percentage. So

under 23115.4 for bullet point 7 talking about 24-hour contact for the property. It sounds like you're enforcing a property manager, whether that be a owner or someone that they are hiring to manage the property. If it is an owner that is non Stillwater resident that is managing the property, we're requiring them to have someone in town that is a point of contact that can be there. Is that what I'm reading this as? Yes, sir. It requires you to have a local contact, someone that can be there within an hour.

And are so are we requiring that person's information as a proof of Yes. And and also so we can contact them. So we have all their information. I will say this has came in to play before and it has helped having that information. Is that written in here because I'm not read seven under seven name address phone number and email the owner the property manager 24-hour contact for the person property must be available within 1 hour. I is commissioner pointing out

so what I'm saying is is that it's the way I'm reading that is you're requiring it for the owner and the property manager but what if the owner or property and property manager are not Still Water residents? Are we requiring is it written into this saying we require the contact information for the person that is the Stillwater resident that can be there within the hour? Well, I mean within an hour you could say they could live in Perkins, they could live in Perry, they could be in Cushing, they could long as they can be there within an hour and I think

and recently we did have a call for a short term. It's easier for the police department to get hold of the property owner because they had that information and then that property owner was responsible to get their local contact there within it. And I think the point you're making is that 7A, the 24-hour contact, is not required to be either the owner or the property manager. Like it could be a third local contact. Correct. And that third local contact, it doesn't require us. It doesn't it doesn't require them. The way I'm reading it, it doesn't require require that person to have their contact information. So I'm not I'm not reading as there's a proof of that person existing if they live in just long as the property halfway. Right.

So if if you live in Tulsa and we contact you as a property owner, you have to have somebody there within an hour. Right. That's how that's written. Right. If the property manager lives in Broken Arrow and they're managing it from their phone, I'm not reading this as the person that can be here within the hour is required to have that information on this. The Yeah. So, it could be re rewritten to say the name, address, phone number, and email of the owner, property manager, and or local contact. There you go. And then it would refer to the local contact in 7A.

Just to make I might also be getting really think that's going to limit because sometimes that person their their normal person may not be able to be here within an hour and so as long as they can I think the important part as long as somebody can be here within an hour whoever that may be okay on behalf of the property owner. So the intent is not to require to have them submit the the name address and phone number. That's what I was thinking when I was writing it. Okay. I was thinking more of property owner, you had to have somebody here with an hour. And so what I'm gonna say, right, instead of I don't if you put Joe Smith, I don't really care if Joe Smith shows up because maybe Joe Smith is actually in Norman this weekend and not here at Stillwater, but you can get Susie here within an hour and that's most important. That's kind of my intent when I wrote that, if that makes sense.

Right. And the way I'm seeing it is I feel like we have had people up here that I live in Broken Arrow. I'm the property manager and yeah, I've got a I've got a buddy that lives in Still Water and if anything goes on, he can go over there and check it out and we're saying that we're basically okay with that still. Not no, you need to have a like contracted person within Okay, that was not the intent. The intent was to get somebody there that can take action if necessary. Okay, but having but it can be changed. Just how the Well, written the way it is, it still gives you the ability to do something about it if they don't meet that criteria.

If someone's not there at that hour. Yes. Did I see a licensing cost and a license renewal cost in?

No. Um, so we are moving to a manual fees process and so we're removing all of our fees and our ordinances so that they can be updated yearly and it's pretty cumbersome to go back to all the ordinances yearly and update that. So, when this goes to council, we'll have a resolution as well for council to pass and that will address the fees. Henry will have to remind me. I can't remember what the fees are being proposed right now. The um fee for the license is $200 and the resubmitt is 100. Those aren't locked in stone yet, but that is what we're proposing. Okay. That'll basically be in separate wording that's not in this section, right? And then eventually, um we are actually compiling all our fees. So, it's one manual and that will be on the website available for citizens and they'll be updated yearly.

Okay.

Right now, I think it's $100 for the initial license and $10 for the renewal. I mean, is anyone seeing anything in here that we would specifically like changed, added, revoked, or do we all feel pretty strongly that this is a good starting starting point.

Yes, seems like a good starting point. Yeah. What do you mean by starting point? You mean obviously it's a living document to be revised a later time if necessary? Yeah. Yeah. No. Yeah.

And one note that I'll add as far as this being a living document is that um we do predict that this map of the existing short-term rentals will change quite a bit as we bring people into compliance. then that might uh have that bringing everyone into compliance seeing how many we really have and where they are might change we might come back with some changes based on that. Well, once we once you are sending out those notices, hey, here are the changes you need to update. Say that are you going to come do it on a first come first- serve basis? If it's if there's two on there, if there's two houses that are competing for that last percentage point of a block, it's whoever is submitting their paperwork the quickest.

So, if they're I guess it's twofold here. So if they are in the districts that require a license now and they're operating without a license and they are not the first come first serve, they would no longer be able to operate that because they were not legally compliance before it, right? And continue on the districts that are not required to have licenses now. I think the process would be to prove that you are already operating and that you want to be compliant, have a license. And I'll let David speak to that since he'll be the one processing them. So you're saying in commercial districts if we actually ended up at 24% of a block because they're currently operating and it isn't required. They're not out of compliance right now. So we would allow that 24% to

I will let David speak to I mean that's that's that's not I mean it's only the percentage is only applying to RSS RSL right so it doesn't matter it doesn't matter that I was yeah RTRM if if if there was living quarters in um in a commercial district that's um that 20% would 20% doesn't matter so they would all be able to get in

and one other thing to mention So, we do have quite a few single family homes that are in the form-based code area. So, the form-based code area, T5, T6, those would fall under the they're outside of the um density um limit that you're talking about. So, but those most the T5 and T6 are surrounding campus. So, um they're not there are neighborhoods there. They're just not as defined as some other neighborhoods that you see that are kind of farther away from campus. Good point. And yeah, just to really clarify the first come, first serve, I think it would be based on application date.

So it would be, I think, less based on how long you've been operating as a short-term rental and more on when you've submitted your application and that probably comes down to a completed application. Yes, ma'am. What are the ramifications for someone that um is not first come first serve and we tell them or the city tells them that they can't operate as a short-term rental but they continue to do so. They can be cited every day that they operate without 500. Yeah.

Okay. And on the starting point comment, another reason why this is a good starting point is because we are working on our text amendment update. So we are going to be rewriting all of this as well. We might just incorporate all of this the way it's written. You might be like, hey, that's working great. Let's copy paste. But that would also be a very natural time for us to make modifications. Let's say if the 20% wasn't working and we wanted to switch to some other sort of density cap, that would be a natural time to do so, which would hopefully be, let's not put a timeline on it. We'll see it this year, maybe.

Oh, I mean I I think I mean I was thinking about that. So if if you found that five houses per block is not typical, it's four houses per block, then you couldn't achieve 20%. Because you wouldn't have 20%. You' be like a partial home, right? So I think if you ran into something like that, that might be a point to reconsider. But I I think what you've got is a great place to start with the 20. And it it is written in that any fraction rounds up to the next or the nearest whole number after that. So if it's a 08, it would round up to one. If it's a 2.1, it would round up to three. So that was written in to give a little bit of flexibility on the applicant side.

On the applicant side. Y yeah. I see. Any other questions for staff? All right, I'll open the public hearing and uh ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this item to please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak in opposition of this item to please come forward. Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing and ask staff to present our alternatives.

Yes, ma'am. So, the findings tonight are that the proposed text amendment requires all short-term rentals within city limits to be licensed. The application requirements are being increased to address common concerns and all short-term rental licenses are proposed to be administratively reviewed and approved. Your alternatives tonight, which we'll actually walk through, um the first one is to accept the findings, recommend that city council approve the proposed text amendment. That would be the version that was attached to the package that would not include the density cap. Option number two is to accept findings and recommend the city council approve the proposed text amendment with the density requirements for the RSS and RSL zoning districts as presented. Um I'm going to add in a we'll get to that. So option three find the additional information or discussion is needed prior to making a recommendation and table the request to a future planning commission meeting. Option four would be find the text amendment is not needed and do not recommend the city council approve the request. Um, and option number five, we're just going to add on to option number two. If you did have any modifications to the rest of the text or to that density requirement, you could of course make that recommendation as well. Request staff make those changes as you recommend approval to go to city council.

And can you let them know what staff recommends?

Oh, yeah. Staff recommends alternative number two, which is to accept findings and recommend that city council approve the proposed text amendment with the density requirements for RSS and RSL zoning districts as presented. And that would be the highlighted yellow section in your um updated version. Any additional discussion or perhaps a motion? I'll kind of piggy back to what you stated earlier. I really appreciate staff's work on this and I think that staff did a really good job of addressing the common concerns that we've sat through and discussed with residents and owners alike. I think that this does a really good job of addressing all of those issues and trying to come to the best solutions for them without it having to come to us to deliver it. I think that the 20%'s a good starting point with only two neighborhoods that is currently ex three neighborhoods currently exceeding that which we already did know that there were a couple that were starting to push that

limit. We'll know if there's more now with ones that are not already abiding by applying for the permit. So, I think that that 20% is a good number to begin this with.

I I agree with you. I I'm sure I can't fully appreciate the amount of work that went into this and um looks very thorough. So, um and has incorporated the same topics that we hear almost with every STR or STR, sorry. Um so, I don't know what we're going to do with all our spare time with those. So, Would you mind throwing those recommendations back up there? Is that possible? I don't want to miss slide. So, I would propose that we accept the findings and recommend that the city council approve the proposed text amendment with the density requirement for RSS and RSL zoning districts as presented. Second.

We have a motion and a second. We shall now vote. Motion passes 5-0. Yay. Feel like I have to add that. So excited.

Yay. Yes. Uh, next item on the agenda is the meeting summary for review and possible action. We have the minutes from the regular meeting summary for April 7th. Are there any additions or corrections? I move to accept the minutes as presented. Second the motion.

We have a motion and a second. We shall now vote. Motion passes uh four with one abstension. Uh, next item on the agenda is miscellaneous items from staff, planning commissioners, or the city attorney for discussion and possible action. Okay. Uh, I will note that the next regular meeting for the planning commission is May 5th. And the last item we have is adjournment. Do I hear a motion to adjurnn? So, so moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. We shall now vote. Motion passes 5-0. We now stand adjourned.