I'd like to call this meeting to order. It is May 11th, 2023. Welcome to the subdivision and zoning items meeting. First on the agenda item, we'd like to ask for the commission for the approval of minutes. This is the April 13th, 2023 minutes. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Worth. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the April 13, 2023 minutes as submitted by staff. We have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Mr. Bell. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes with one abstention from Mr. Pohl. Next, we're going to move a little bit in the agenda, page 7. We're going to bring up item C, performance bonds and letters of credit. We have that in our packet here. I'd like to have a motion for the acceptance of the release of these performance bonds and letters of credit. The floor is open. Mr. Bell? Mr. Chair, move for a move. Move for approval of the performance bonds as suggested. Okay, thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, second. Now, Mr. DeMovilland, please vote via Granicus. Great. That motion passes. Okay, postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Chair, could I ask for a clarification? Yes. I know we've got some time constraints, and I want to know, is it possible to stay within the time constraints to postpone the hearing on the ZODA or continue it in some fashion? Frankly, there are provisions in here I need more information about, and there are some things that are not here. So I would like to know what we can do and what we can't do. You cannot, you can't postpone it to your next hearing because you will be past the time constraints in the statute. Okay. You can, you do have a possibility to continue it, but you have to start a hearing to continue a hearing. So if you were going to do that, you would, you know, start your hearing, take whatever comments you can take, ask whatever questions, and then you would have to continue it to next Thursday's work session and schedule the continuance for a special meeting preceding that work session. That would be one option. But that would be the only way that you can have any more time beyond today to meet with the statutory guidelines. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you turn in the agenda to page 6, item I, PLN, MJDP 23-25, Rose H. Brigden, and Mark McClure, Property Track Day, we would like to ask for a two-week postponement to the May 25th hearing. We have a waiver tied to this that we're asking for, and we just need more time to do some research on sanitary sewers. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. If there aren't any questions, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLNMJDP 2325 to our March, I'm sorry, May 25th hearing. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. DeMovlin. Please vote via Granicus. Thank you. That motion passes. Mr. Billings. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the commission and staff. My name is Nathan Billings. I'm with Billings Law Firm. I'm on agenda page 2, Development Plan 1B, PLNMJDP 22-45 Distillery District West, We ask for a one-month postponement to the June docket. Okay. So if there aren't any questions, the floor is open, and that's the June 8th meeting? That's correct. Okay. Thank you, sir. The floor is open for a motion for that one-month postponement. Mr. Chair. Mr. Bell. I move for postponement of PLNMJDP 2245 for one month, June 8th. All right. Second by Mr. DeMovilland. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Wade. Mr. Tone. Sorry. Mr. Martin has a few, I believe. Okay. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'd like to direct your attention to page 2, item A, under development plans. This is Major Development Plan 18-04, Triple Stars property. Staff has had a communication with the applicant requesting a one-month postponement. You can see by the date and the original date on this plan of 2004, it requires a significant redesign to meet our current regulations, and they're having trouble making progress in that regard. Okay. The floor is open for a motion for a one-month postponement as to June 8th meeting. Mr. Chair, move for postponement, PLN, MJDP 18-4 to June 8th. Okay, thank you. Second? Second. Seconded by Mr. DeMovlin. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, on page 6 of your agenda, Item H, Major Development Plan 23-23, RML Citation, Hill and Meyer Interest Limited, Lots 1 and 3. The applicant has requested a one-month postponement. They're continuing to work on Item 12 on your agenda, compliance with Article 16, 18, and 20 of the ordinance. Again, they're having a challenge meeting some of those conditions and ask for some more time. Okay, thank you. If there aren't any questions, the floor is open for a motion for the one-month postponement. Mr. Davis? Mr. Chair, I move for a postponement to our June 8th hearing of PLNMJDP 2323. Second. Seconded by Ms. Wirth. Please vote via Granicus. That motion passes unanimously. Any others? Okay. So now we can move to the consent agenda. Now Ms. Wade, you're up. Thank you, Chairman Forrester. Members of the Commission, we do have a few items that appear on a consent agenda. I know we have a big audience today. So the white sheet of paper that was in the back is a consent agenda for the Planning Commission. to consider these items, they'll consider them in one motion, unless there's someone in the audience today that wishes to have one of these items removed from the consent agenda and presented to the Commission in full. So as I read through those, I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that wishes to have an item removed from the consent agenda. So we do have four items today. The first appears on page 3 of our regular agenda item D, and that's PLN MJDP 2279 for the Coleman property also known as the Newtown Pike Hampton Inn and Suites amended this is for property located at 1880 Newtown Pike so anyone that wishes to have this item heard today I don't see anyone next item appears on page 5 item F of our agenda PLN MJDP 23 for Higbee Mill Reserve. This is a portion of Lot 3, also an amended development plan, for property located at 2111 Stedman Drive. Is there anybody present that wishes to have this item heard? Okay. Next, on page 5, item G of the agenda, PLN MJDP 23-21, Sam's and Larkin property kentucky eagle warehouse expansion also an amended final development plan for property located at 2440 innovation drive so anyone that wishes to have this item heard okay and then lastly on page six item j pln mjdp 23-27 for deer field shopping center and this is also an amended final development plan for the Bank of Lexington that property address is 1949 Nicholasville Road is there anyone that wishes to have this item heard okay chairman Forster I don't see anyone that from the audience that wishes to have these heard so the Planning Commission could consider them all together we'd appreciate that okay thank you miss Wade so the floor is open for a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented Mr. Chair I'll move to approve the consent agenda as presented. Thank you. We have a second to that motion. Second by Mr. Bell. Excuse me, Mr. Pohl. I was giving you some hair, Healy. I got it. Okay, vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, put us on page three of the agenda PLN MJDP 22-72. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page three. It's Major Development Plan 22-72, the Fox property, located at 2400. I just realized I don't have my control device. Oh, there it is. It's in front of me. I didn't notice it. I'm more prone to that lately. All right. Once again, Fox property, 2400 for Sales Road. this is the property the development plan that was before you as part of a zone change that this body denied subsequently the council overturned that decision approved this zone change however you postponed the plan they did not act on the plan so the plan is back before you today we have handed out on this beautiful blue sheet of paper some revised conditions on the plan. I'm sure as you all will recall, here we are on Roussel's Road. Parker's Mill is right down here, a couple of properties away from this. On the left here, your left, is extensive floodplain. That's the remnant of the Fox property. Extreme amount of floodplain on this property. Very difficult property to develop because of that. This is where the old house used to sit, right in here on this small little lot at this location. Again, you can see the plan proposes the access off of Versailles Road. Two lanes will then circulate around the proposed commercial building. This is a coffee shop, as it was presented to you at the zone change. Again, there's extensive floodplain. When this will be developed out, this area will be floodplain. this is out of the floodplain once it is developed and finished and completely engineered again you may recall there were concerns with the circulation and particularly this little area and conflict up here as well as access was an issue sub your planning staff raised that particular issue initially with some concern whether or not right in right out would be appropriate discussions with both KDOT, District 7, Kentucky District Transportation Cabinet, along with our own transportation traffic engineering division, it was determined that a better solution in this case, because as you know, write-in, write-outs require median controls. And the extent of those median controls, they don't exist in this location, were such that they made the determination that they would prefer that three-quarter access that you've heard about lately, which basically allows a left in but no left out. So you've got a right in, a right out, and a left in is what they have recommended in that location. In addition, there was some discussion and a request from you all on the front of the building in order to waive the setback. They have filed with the Board of Adjustment to address that. Since you did not act on the plan when you turned down the zone change, they have submitted that request to the Board of Adjustments. So that's one of the conditions of approval on this plan is, of course, that the BOA will grant that front yard setback variance. They are providing a patio area here in the front of the building so people can walk up and people can also get their coffee. Staff has a condition. We'd like for them to denote the seating that they intend to make available on the patio so that people can, again, come there, sit there, have coffee, and not just be totally auto-centric, as you know these drive-throughs principally are. Hence some of the concerns that staff initially had with this particular plan. Again, we've added a couple of extra conditions with fire, solid waste. The others are standard conditions for a development plan. and with that staff is recommending approval to you and be happy to answer any questions that you may have for staff any questions for staff mr bell oh yes sir there is a drive-thru and again i'm sorry to make that clear you come in it's two lanes it's right in here and this is a bypass lane at this point they have two lanes to order and then they merge into one to pick up and come out with a bypass. And I assume you all are all comfortable with traffic potentially backing up onto Versailles Road? Yes, sir. That was quite a bit of discussion that we had in-house on the best way to address that. And, again, traffic engineering felt that this type of access would be best in these circumstances. It varies, again, as you know, depending on the situation with the highway, the arterial that they find themselves on. Yes. Mr. Martin, thank you. Aside from, I'm guessing, a concrete barrier right there on the ground, is there anything that truly prevents somebody from turning left if they really wanted to? Traffic, primarily. Yes. We see it all the time. That's one of the problems with the right in, right out only and the median controls is people loop around them if they're not extensive enough. And we have found that's happening in another location to a great degree, which becomes more dangerous in traffic's estimation. So, Mr. Day, bad behavior is difficult to plan for and even difficult to design for. Sure. So do you anticipate any kind of U-turn efforts? I'm not aware of that situation at this time. It's a legal movement. I don't know that they're going to mark the pavement as such, like you see in some locations where they have an arrow in a lane, the left lane, and they'll have the U-turn arrow. I'm not sure that District 7 is planning that at this location at this time. That being the intersection at Parker's Mill. Yeah, I've got two questions. The first, I mean, I guess, is we had some discussion when we saw this the first time about the variance request in that our zoning guidelines are trying to pull the buildings up to the street. And have there been any changes to that on this plan, or is this essentially the same? It is essentially the same plan, and they are going to the BOA now to try to gain that approval. So the council has not given them at this point that? Oh, no, no, no. The council did not act on the plan whatsoever. And so, just from my understanding, we're being asked to approve a development plan without a variance for where this building currently is, which would not be allowed where it is without that variance? You are being asked to approve a plan with a condition that the BOA approved that variance. Okay. If they don't approve it, then they don't get it, and they'll have to meet the required setback. Okay, thank you. Any further questions, Mr. Bell? Can counsel then Trump BOA? No, sir. Thank you. They'd have to go to court. I'm not seeing any other questions. Thank you. All right, applicant. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Brandon Gross. I'm here on behalf of the applicant caller's property. We have reviewed the staff's conditions, and we are agreeable to all those conditions. And I'm here today to answer any questions you may have. Okay, Mr. Gross, does the commission have any questions for the applicant? All right. Not seeing any. Okay. Well, I'll sit down. I'll be right here if you need me. Thank you. Are there any citizens that would like to speak on this particular application? Good afternoon. My name is Amy Clark and I live at 628 Castle Road. I have an ongoing interest in Versailles Road for the bike pad alternate modes of transportation and have worked on it for many years with others on Versailles Road. I could wish that the hearing, the zone change hearing, could be entered into this record. I don't know that that can happen unless I do it. But I don't mean to repeat what was said to you by me and others on that day. I have several concerns about whether this development plan truly is in conformity with the zoning ordinance. And I will begin by saying this. What we have here is an accessory use drive-through. Let me put that differently. B-1 zoning gives the Planning Commission one opportunity to approve a drive-through on a development plan. That's an accessory drive-through that you are authorized to approve on a development plan. There is also the opportunity for the Board of Adjustment to approve a drive-through as a conditional use. I believe it would be much better for the Board of Adjustment to make any decision about the drive-through in conjunction with a decision about the variance, because they go together in the business and use plan of the whole property. I don't believe that this is an accessory use because it's accessory to nothing. You are seeing the same development plan here that you saw for the zone change. It's unchanged. It was a final development plan proposed at the time, amended from the 2016 one. one, vastly more pavement, less green space. There's a lot of floodplain to work with. If it's not an accessory drive-through, I question whether it is within your authority to approve this development plan showing this drive-through. I imagine it would be possible to approve it on condition that the BOA approve the drive-through. The reason it would help to have the BOA review that and make a judgment on that is that if it's a conditional use, the BOA can judge whether it's appropriate to the site, and it can attach conditions to make it fit the site, fit the vicinity, be appropriate to the site. I was not aware that we're doing three minutes. Yes, your three minutes are up. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this particular application? Okay. All right. Applicant, do you want to step back up? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to, Ms. Clark brought up really two issues. The first one is on the traffic. As you can recall, while we, underneath the zoning ordinance, were not required to get a traffic impact study, we did get a traffic impact study for this project. The traffic impact study shows that this project can be done safely without reducing the level of services in this area. Your planning staff has reviewed it. The traffic engineering department has reviewed it. The MOP has reviewed it. Everyone within the city who reviews those type of items has reviewed that traffic study and found that, yes, we can operate at this location safely. Also, as to the movements, we have agreed to a three-quarters access. We are going to design the front entrance so that it will be very difficult for cars to turn left. Any car can turn left. We can't stop that. I could technically drive over a curb in a parking lot and turn left if I so chose. We design things to discourage that type of behavior, and we expect our fellow citizens to follow the traffic laws that we all are supposed to follow on a daily basis. But I will add that every other quick service restaurant in this area has full access. We will be the only restaurant in this area that has agreed to a three-quarters access. I think my client has at least gone the extra mile into alleviating some of those concerns, even though the traffic impact study did not warrant a no left turn. We have agreed to adopt that restriction. And as to the drive-through, you have the authority to approve that on the development plan today. We do not have to go to the Board of Adjustment to get that approval. you can approve that today. We have filed for the zoning ordinance, I mean for the variance to be heard next month. That deadline was yesterday, so if this body were to deny us being heard on the drive-thru today, you would put us out 60 days. We wouldn't be able to file again until next month, and I would also like to remind everyone that an almost identical project was approved by you guys on Harrisburg Road out off of – what's that development called where the Seven Rues is? The Effington Project. This is almost the exact same project that was approved by this board last year at Effington. So with all that being said, if you have any more questions, I'm here to answer them for you. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Are there any questions for the applicant? I'm not seeing any. Thank you, sir. Ms. Clark, do you want to step back up and say anything additional? As Mr. Penn recognized when you reviewed the development plan for the zone change, The use is not set by what is said here, and the two uses for which you have traffic study information furnished don't include fast food without seating, and yet that appears to be one of the possible uses. That's to say that the impact of the drive-through and the traffic going through it could be more considerable than the two studies with two particular uses that you have. I would ask you to review the zoning ordinance word for word, and you will see that it lists under accessory uses a drive-through provided. It's approved by the Planning Commission on a development plan. Under conditional uses, it lists a drive-through. Thank you. Thank you. don't you have anything else okay thank you there's any questions from the commission everybody's quiet today okay well if there aren't any floor is open for a motion or further discussion Well, I have a I mean, I have a comment, and it basically parallels what I said in regards to this when we saw it before. And I think we see it again, is that drive-throughs are space intensive. that this development plan shows this drive-through taking up a lot of space and a lot of pavement relative to the built area. The way the applicant is proposing to make that work is that we grant a variance to allow them to push the building back and wrap the drive-through around the front. To me, on this lot that borders a neighborhood and borders a large open space, I don't see the justification to make a variance to allow for a drive-through that the neighbors originally asked not be included on this parcel when it was zoned B1. Furthermore, they're coming to this meeting without that variance or without that permission, and we're being asked to approve this with the condition that they go around to another board to get approval for what we initially thought was a bad idea. And I guess my two cents are, is I still think this variance is a bad idea. I still think putting a drive-through where it doesn't fit is a bad idea, and that's what I'm seeing on this development plan, especially in the context that this building isn't placed where it would be required to be today. Thank you, sir. Any other questions, comments? Okay. can't we close this portion out all right guys you're looking at me so i can't make a motion so it's on you guys and ladies i would i would make a motion to I thought Ms. Nichols you had something oh I'm sorry I thought he was motioning go ahead I would make a motion to deny PLN MJGP 22-72 Fox property here we have a motion of disapproval any discussion to that motion any none is there a second to that motion and a second by Ms. Worth. All in favor, please vote via Granicus. It's a tie. How does that work? One, two, three. Graham. Okay, so the motion passes. Thank you, Graham. The motion passes to deny. Yes, the motion passes to deny. Okay. This is the only thing you like. Page 4, PLN MJDP 23-19. Tom? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, The next item on your agenda is at the bottom of page four. It is a major development plan, 23-19, 12th Street edition. We are out on North Broadway, and this is 12th Street, North Broadway. This is a proposal. You saw the original zone change in proposal not all that long ago for six townhouses. wasn't developed in accordance with that particular proposal habitat for humanity has now purchased the property they've brought it back to you with a modified development plan you can see the five townhouses they are proposing parking in this location access into the rear of the townhouses here we have a detention area that's being proposed and they initially came in with six units they dropped one of the units so what they're here with five units that does allow this detention to go in they had originally looked at placing it under the parking area and access there's expensive maintenance issues obviously with that type of detention in addition a positive outcome of this there's a large sycamore tea right here which they're going to be able to save and protect with this particular development this again these five townhouses are a little over a thousand one hundred and twenty square feet each they're two stories and they are having 20 bedrooms associated with this development there is screening that was required and a variance that was granted on this property originally along this location here this frontage on 12th Street. The new regs that you all adopted affect townhouses in such a way that they're required to have access when they have rear access off a public street or an alley. In this particular case, again, you can see there's five units, and as you move from 12th Street in this direction, there's three lots before you get to the next street. They're fully developed. It would be very unlikely that they will redevelop. This site is currently vacant. So there's really no public good served by requiring a full public street or even an alley, a public alley, in this location because it would terminate at those properties. So, again, you all have the authority to make a finding that a waiver is appropriate and will meet the necessary requirements of health and safety relative to these properties. With that, staff, your subdivision committee recommended approval. Staff is recommending that you do make a finding that an access easement would be appropriate in this location for this particular development. Be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for staff? Yes, Mr. Davis. Mr. Martin, was there any public comment or input from the residents currently on 12th Street? Early on in the original zone change, there was a tremendous amount of discussion with the residents, and that's one of the reasons we have this situation here where the side yard was adjusted, screening was required, screening required here. They also have a note on the plan that addresses exterior lighting on the buildings as well. I remember that hearing. Yes, thank you. All right. Any further questions? Just staff, we've got a little. Okay. As long as you have it, that's fine. Okay. Thank you, Tom. Applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Brad Boaz with CMW. I would echo what Tom said in hopes that you guys would find this plan approval and that doing a finding of the access easement in lieu of the public street or alley is appropriate for this site. So I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? I see any. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any citizens that would like to speak on this particular application? They can do so by stepping up to the podium. I'm not seeing any, so we'll bring it back to the commission. Close this portion out. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Bell? Mr. Chair, move for approval of PLN and MJDP 2319. Okay. And that includes the findings? Do we have to do the findings separately? Access easement. Okay, thank you. And we got a second. I thought we had one. Mr. Davis got you. So we're going to vote via hands raised so you can see it. Is that better? Okay. All the ayes, hands up, please. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All righty. So that should put us on page 8. PLN Zota 23-1 for any citizens that will be speaking we will have a three minute timer up front that we will hold pretty tight so thank Autumn oh that's true right that is how the whole building is down so just for the audience um technology is good when we have it it's bad when we don't right now we don't have it so you may or may not be able to see everything i'm not sure but in case you do not um just i guess kind of let us know emotionist because we're uh stined up here too so just want to make sure everyone's aware autumn Give us just one second to get the presentation pulled up here. All right. So this is PLN ZODA 23-1, a ZODA to define and regulate short-term rentals. There are currently over 1,000 short-term rentals operating in Lexington. About 94% of those are entire home rentals. 6% are private rooms. And they do exist in all kinds of neighborhoods. they're in historic districts downtown the suburbs all over currently there are questions about how they're regulated we don't define short-term rentals in the zoning ordinance currently so we look at to the definition of a dwelling unit and that says that a dwelling unit has to be occupied by a family as owner or by rental on a weekly monthly or longer basis so that has been interpreted to mean that the shortest rental period of a dwelling unit is one week rental by a group that meets our definition of family or housekeeping unit so that's 52 rentals a year and limited to four unrelated individuals or any number of related individuals from time to time zoning enforcement has received complaints about short-term rentals and and we've generally notified operators of the interpretation related to the 52 rentals and the definition of family and that's kind of been the end of it. It's because they've not been formally distinguished from any other type of dwelling unit, not distinguished as anything separate. We've really not been able to enforce those limitations or to keep track of where these are. So we really don't know where they are other than when we see them on the platforms online or we receive a complaint occasionally. So a council work group convened in the past couple of years to create regulations for short-term rentals. So this is a two-part initiative. I'm sorry. Would you just play the, we couldn't see some details. There you go. Thank you. Missed that. That wasn't there. Thank you. That's what I wanted to see. Thank you. Okay. So again, this ZODA is part of a two-part initiative to regulate short-term rentals. The council work group was established in 2019 and has initiated this soda or we'll put it forth to the full council who then initiated the soda for you all to make a recommendation. It also in third work group also included changes to the code of ordinances to address the revenue concerns. So I'll go over the timeline a little bit of how we how we got here. Short-term rentals have been sort of discussed for a number of years. In 2019 a work group convened to start trying to regulate short-term rentals. They worked for a little under a year they came up with some changes to the code of ordinances at that time the zoning ordinance portion I think was kind of overlooked the code of ordinance changes though made it to council they were scheduled for a first reading and then the government shut down due to the pandemic so that kind of tabled the conversation for a couple of years then last March a new workgroup reconvened and they've had a number of meetings they've worked with planning and with law to develop the new drafts for the code of ordinances and for the zoning ordinance so between March 2022 and February of this year the council work group held 15 meetings with stakeholder groups so that included a large number of operators of short-term rentals as well as some neighborhoods where there were perceived to be a higher concentration of short-term rentals I know that some of the representatives were from Gratz Park Ashland Park and Kenwick and I think there were some other neighborhoods represented as well planning attended some of those meetings but not all of them since then since the soda was initiated planning attended a meeting of the Fayette County neighborhood council and we've also met with the FCNC leadership a couple of times in our offices since then so the Planning Commission does not have any purview over the code of ordinance changes but it is important to summarize that component because they really do work hand in hand so when the initiate When the ZODA was initiated by council, council did table the code of ordinance changes until they got a recommendation from you all on the ZODA so that those two documents could work hand in hand and move forward together. The code of ordinance requirements are really critical to being able to track and enforce any complaints that we receive about short-term rentals. So it's expected that software will be purchased that will enable that tracking to occur and to sort of track the licensure process. and that will include a zoning sign-off or proof of a zoning compliance permit. Violations of the zoning ordinance or other violations related to noise or criminal activity or any other code requirements can result in revocation of the special fees license and continuation of the operation after that license has been revoked can lead to fees and a lien on the property ultimately. So the zoning ordinance updates. staff is generally supportive of much of the text that was initiated, but we have provided some alternative language that I'll go through in a few locations throughout the draft. So, and I do want to note before we get into that, that this ZODA only addresses short-term rentals in our urban zones. It does not include the agricultural zones. It's likely that those zones will need special, they will need sort of a different standard for short-term rentals in those zones because of agritourism. The state defines uses like farm stays, which are sort of overnight rentals that are associated with an activity on a farm and sort of participating in that activity. The ag areas have farm employee dwelling units, which are currently only able to be rented or occupied by family members of farm owners or employees of farms, so either way, someone who is participating in the activity on the farm. So we expect that there may be some more nuance to those zones the Rural E Management Board has submitted a letter that's in your packet that they are working towards creating another soda that you'll likely see in the coming months to complement this one for those zones so we'll start with the changes to article 1 and there are three new definitions in article 1 one being the definition of short-term rental you'll see that definition here staff has proposed some alternative language here to note that this is a commercial use of a dwelling unit. That's something that we heard a lot in the meetings with neighbors, was that these aren't really a residential use whenever it's something that's happening on a daily basis. So staff agreed with that and thought it was an important distinction. The next two definitions are sort of nestled under the definition of short-term rental. We have hosted short-term rentals. Those are short-term rentals in which the dwelling unit or another dwelling unit on the same property is occupied by a permanent resident. who is on site for the duration of the rental and who for whom it is their primary residence an unhosted short-term rental is one in which there is no primary resident associated with the short-term rental on the property or in that unit article 3 a new section was added to article 3 that's article 3-13 and that includes general regulations for short-term rentals related to these topics here so licensure the number and and types of short-term rentals available per property, the maximum occupancy, detached accessory structures, parties and events, guidance for conditional uses, and provisions for existing short-term rentals. And we'll go through each one of these. So subsection A requires that all short-term rentals be licensed in accordance with the code of ordinance changes. Section B includes a table. This table demonstrates where short-term rentals are allowed either as hosted or unhosted units, whether they're a principal, accessory, or conditional use, and how many are allowed per property in each zone. So except in the more intense commercial zones that allow for both dwelling units and hotels, unhosted short-term rentals are a conditional use requiring approval by the Board of Adjustment. Hosted short-term rentals are generally an accessory use. And then again, at a certain rate per property. So staff is recommending a couple of changes to this section. One is that higher occupancy short-term rentals also be treated as conditional uses, even for the ones that are hosted. And I'll get a little bit more into that on the next slide. Staff is also recommending a modification to the number of short-term rentals that are allowed in our multifamily residential zones. The initiated text allows for a maximum of three units per property in those zones, but because the number of units in a multifamily structure or on a group residential lot can vary greatly. That could be a triplex or it could be a piece of property that has two or three three-story apartment buildings. So staff is proposing a maximum of 10% or one unit, whichever is greater. We think that that will have a lesser impact on the lower-density multifamily buildings to prevent those from becoming sort of all-short-term rentals per building. So now we'll look at item C. This is the maximum occupancy limit. So the original draft that was initiated provided for two occupants per bedroom plus four, or a maximum of 12, whichever is less. In staff's conversations, reviewing the text, we had a lot of concerns about this creating a conflict with some other uses in our ordinance and with the Fair Housing Act. So in the definition, sorry, in our zoning ordinance, the current definition of family or housekeeping unit, as I mentioned before, it doesn't limit the number of related individuals that can occupy a dwelling unit, but it does limit unrelated individuals to four. However, there is a caveat to that that allows for up to eight if the individuals have a disability as outlined in the Fair Housing Act. So in our residential zones, typically up to eight individuals who have a disability, which may include sober living facilities, for folks who are recovering from alcohol or substance abuse, they can occupy one dwelling unit at a rate of eight. And then once you get beyond eight, a conditional use is required in most of our residential zones as sort of a rehabilitation home for that type of use. So in order to be more consistent with those other uses in the zone and with the Fair Housing Act, staff is recommending reducing the maximum of 12 to a maximum of eight. 3-13D gives the board the opportunity to establish a higher maximum occupancy for short-term rentals that are regulated as conditional uses. It directs them to use the above provision for two per bedroom or eight, unless there are sufficient evidence to indicate that the greater occupancy would not result in overcrowding or nuisance. So that gives a little bit of leeway to go beyond the eight in a certain special circumstance. Section E talks about detached accessory structures, and those can only be used as a short-term rental if they are a permitted detached accessory dwelling unit. 3-13F talks about private events in parties. We heard from the operators that saying an outright prohibition on parties would be really infeasible because a lot of times folks want to rent a short-term rental to have their family that maybe they can't accommodate in their own dwelling unit because they live in a smaller apartment or something, or they're graduating and their family's going to be coming in to celebrate, or maybe they're hosting a small baby shower or something like that. So staff was, well, the work group rather, this one's not a staff amendment. Generally thought that that made sense, but that the number of participants should be limited to the maximum occupancy as prescribed above in the section. And also that no private events should occur between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. Those are the hours of our noise ordinance, So just in order to keep that consistent and to not invite sort of a potential nuisance, those hours were included here. Sections G and H provide additional considerations for short-term rentals that are regulated as conditional uses. So a number of conditional uses in our zoning ordinance do include additional requirements or considerations like this, but the majority do not. So staff does not feel like this is completely necessary because the board is always evaluating conditional uses on a case-by-case basis. and for their own merits, and in a particular location. However, staff does feel that these recommendations are helpful to the board and to staff whenever we are writing a staff report about a conditional use. So we're generally in support of these provisions. Staff has provided alternative text for two additional conditions to address existing short-term rental operations. So these are those that are currently in operation based on planning's interpretation of weekly rentals of dwelling units. So again, going back to that 52 times a year, no more than four unrelated individuals. So typically, when a use that has been allowed is further regulated or defined in the zoning ordinance, it becomes a legal non-conforming use. But when it becomes a legal non-conforming use, it's limited to operating as it was allowed to operate previously. So in conversations with the work group and over time, it seemed that the intent of this was to allow the existing short-term rental operators to continue to operate, but to be able to take advantage of some of the less strict requirements of the new ordinance. So in this case, that would mean that the existing short-term rental operators could be grandfathered in with some new flexibility that would require them to be able to have them, or not require them, it would enable them to have more than 52 rentals a year and to utilize the occupancy cap of eight rather than four until such time that there's a change in ownership at which time they would need to come back to the board of adjustment for a conditional use permit. Section J reiterates the provisions related to non-conforming uses for short-term rentals that are operating in zones that will not specifically list short-term rentals as a principal accessory or conditional use. So that allows for, when the use becomes listed in other zones, it becomes prohibited in a zone that it's not listed in. So this would be for short-term rentals that are currently existing in our agricultural zones or something like that, that they would be able to continue to operate with, but would be still limited to the historic interpretation. So the 52 rentals a year for individuals. And again, it's expected that that section would be modified pretty quickly when the Rural Land Management Board comes forward with their text amendment to address the ag zones. There are changes to Articles 8, 12, 23, and 28, but these just reiterate what you have seen previously in the table, listing, adding hosted and unhosted short-term rentals to each list of uses in each zone that allows for a dwelling unit. Staff is supportive of this effort to modernize the uses in the zoning ordinance, to reflect a new and popular use that has both residential and commercial qualities and has historically been really difficult to categorize and regulate. A lot of communities are really struggling with this. A handful have enacted new regulations or modified regulations in the past couple of weeks. And a lot of places have enacted regulations and come back and modified them in the past couple of years. So staff is recommending approval of this with the alternative staff text because it allows for the definition and regulation of short-term rentals In conjunction with the code of ordinance changes, we feel that this text amendment will enable LFUCG to track short-term rentals and to provide better enforcement when there are violations. It also provides enforceable limitations on hosted and unhosted short-term rentals in order to prevent adverse impacts on the health, safety, and welfare of the local community. So before we turn it back over to you for questions, I did want to talk a little bit about what's next because, again, this is a little bit unusual since it's moving forward with code of ordinance changes. So once you all make your recommendation to the council, the ZODA will return to council, and they will consider whether or not there need to be additional changes to the code of ordinances to match the zoning ordinance if you all have adopted perhaps staff alternative or some other language. And then the council can either hold a public hearing, they can just approve whatever recommendation you all have put forward, or they can put the ZODA back into committees. And again, one last time, the rural service area, we do expect another soda. Throw back our recommendation of approval there and open it up to any questions that you may have. We got a few. Hold on. No, you want to get Ms. Worth first? I'll go just quick. Okay, go ahead. Just quickly, can you go back to the previous slide and identify to us what are the next steps? Okay, can you review this slide again a little bit slower for me? Sure. So your options, you are on a deadline. So you had 60 days from the time that the ZODA was initiated by council. That ends on May 23rd. So today is your last regularly scheduled public hearing that you can make a decision. So you are making a recommendation to the council. You can recommend approval of the text that was submitted, initiated by council. You can recommend approval of the staff alternative text, or you can recommend disapproval. Regardless, your recommendation will go back to council, and they'll be able to pick it up from there. And they can, again, have a public hearing, put it back in committee, make more changes. There are several options. And pending the decision that council makes, does it come back to us as a text amendment? It's just completed as a text amendment, or do we? You would not see it again. Okay, so it just comes back as an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Right, the zoning ordinance will be amended. Okay, thank you. Mr. Worth? The one question and concern, and I don't know if this is yours to answer or if we have council members who are available and would want to answer this, has to do with density of the units, not on a lot, but density in a neighborhood. Sure. I like Airbnbs. I prefer to stay in Airbnbs when I travel. But I've stayed in some that are wonderfully integrated into the neighborhood. I've stayed in one that is basically occupied mostly by seasonal visitors. And it's a ghost town out of season. And there is no neighborhood there. I mean, it's absolutely destructive. I understand Louisville has a 600-foot occupancy requirement, and I'm wondering, I know ours is up to the BOA and it's flexible. I'd be a lot more comfortable if we instituted some sort of limitation by distance. You have the option to do that. But in staff's review, our opinion was that giving the board that flexibility made sense because in different neighborhoods, 600 feet means something different than in other neighborhoods or 1,000 feet. In a more dense neighborhood where you have a lot more units in a smaller area, that is a lot different than when you have a larger lot, single family, R1A zone. So just setting a dimensional requirement like that maybe doesn't make as much sense without the ability to flex. Thank you. Mr. Bell. Autumn, thank you. Would you go back over 13-3C, the maximum occupancy limit rate, and just walk through that a little more slowly? Sure. Let me thank you. So the initiated text includes language that says that there should be a maximum of two individuals per bedroom plus an additional four individuals, or a total of 12, whichever is less. So 12 is the number that you get to for a four-bedroom unit based on that calculation. That number is fairly consistent with some other cities. Again, staff is recommending eight. We heard a lot from neighborhoods that 12 was way too many. I think that a lot of neighborhoods think that eight is way too many. but we saw that it was an appropriate number, especially given our concerns related to the Fair Housing Act and sober living facilities and that sort of thing. Thank you. Mr. Poe. Could you elaborate a little bit on the procedures for enforcement appeals and revocation of special fees license? Sure. I will kind of briefly do that. And we also have Evan from the law department who was instrumental in writing the code of ordinances language, which, again, is not part of your purview, but we can touch on and ask some questions, I think. so the code of ordinance provisions include a regime for regulating any sort of complaints that are verified so with this type of use it's difficult to sort of corral any complaints into one location so there could be complaints that are related to the zoning maybe someone doesn't have their conditional use or isn't operating in accordance with a certain condition or something like that that complaint would still go to zoning enforcement but once that is a validated complaint it would be registered with revenue and would count against the allowable I think they're allowed to have two complaints and then your license is revoked there's an appeals process for that and if the license is revoked that there's a one-year time limit before you could apply again and if you lose that license you lose your conditional use as well so you would have to in that after the year's up you'd have to come back to the board as well And what provisions are there for people who choose to ignore the fact that they've lost their license? There are fees that can be assessed on the property, and then ultimately a lien could be placed on the property. The Division of Revenue is able to do that. A question, again, about the occupancy. I guess I really have two questions first of all if you had a five-bedroom house you would still be limited to eight or whatever in the number of bedrooms you correct unless you went to the Board of Adjustment and requested a conditional use for a short-term rental with more than eight okay and so some of the comments on eight or twelve being too many what what was what it too many mean what was that based on I think that generally I think you'll hear about it from the neighbors whenever they get their time to speak their piece. I think that they have concerns about parties, about noise, about parking, about just generally having that many people coming and going on a daily basis with no limitation to how many rentals per year or anything like that. It could be 12 new people every day instead of a permanent neighbor, I think is of concern to a lot of the neighbors that we've heard from. And just to clarify, when you say you heard from, did you hear from everybody? Did we have a hearing on this, or was this just people who reached out to staff? So staff attended a meeting of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, one of their regularly scheduled meetings. There were probably 60 folks in attendance, I would guess, at that meeting. So we heard it there. We've received e-mails and phone calls and that sort of thing. There was a public hearing by council back in November on an earlier draft of this before they initiated the text amendment. I think most of the folks who spoke at that meeting were operators, but I think there were a few neighbors. So is this the most public hearing today? I would say that the council meeting back in November had a higher attendance probably. Okay. Thank you. On Section I, 313, I see the change of ownership but if it stops operating as an STR would that require? Yes if it stops operating as a short-term rental and converts back to a long-term rental or something like that it would they would lose their non-conforming status that's that's typical of any non-conforming use once you stop using that use it goes away. Is that in here somewhere? It's in Article 4. That's an existing provision. Okay, thank you. Non-conforming uses. Autumn, you mentioned Evan. You think he's going to give us a little information? Hello. This is the first time for the Planning Commission. It's nice to meet you all. My name is Evan Thompson from the Law Department. it. Autumn touched on a lot of what I was going to say. Basically, if you don't have a license, for the people who just ignore all of it, the Division of Revenue would place, would cite the property, monetary fines. We can turn those into liens, which then would go on the property, and obviously would have to be paid in any kind of sale and could also potentially be foreclosed upon by the government. Similar to code enforcement liens like tall grass, weeds, structural housing violations that say that same type of structure there's the and of course for those citations you have the ability to appeal those to the to a to a board to be able to you know have your due process be able to potentially even appeal that to district court as pertains as provided in state statute for for those who who have a license and and violate part of the code changes which obviously like you said like Adam said was isn't before you today but will but this ZODA is which pertains to it but basically if the violations of that you can get cited just like you can get monetary citations on your property which then could turn into liens but also rescind your license so that way if you're acting without a license then you have those monetary penalties so it's heavily fine based ultimately which then like I said have the ability to be turned into liens which are really the stick so to speak thank you mr. pole yeah quick question so is there are there provisions like that in force right now or is it or are these entirely new these are entirely new there's no licensure of short-term rentals in Lexington as it stands right now thank you any other questions was that yes so the just clarification the difference between a bed and breakfast in a short-term rental is the breakfast Is that the way that I read this? Our definition of bed and breakfast is probably a little bit old. It does require that an owner live on the property and operate the bed and breakfast. There are limitations on the number of bedrooms that can be utilized. It really is more of a you're renting out a bedroom and then you are providing a meal. and it's I think meant to be a little bit more of a social sort of aspect that you're sharing. We're not trying to wrap that up. We're keeping a parallel track where you have a bed and breakfast and serve breakfast, and that's how that is defined then. There's a little bit more to it. It's actually one of our more onerous uses to get. Those are conditional uses. Again, with that owner occupancy requirement, they're pretty tricky. You can't do a lot of changes to the dwelling to make it look more like a hotel or something like that. we have found that they are not it's not a popular use so we did not opt to touch that in this because it's it's really a different animal than the short-term rental but then the short-term rental owner would not be able to serve breakfast that is correct that language is in the definition that's pretty consistent across other jurisdictions I don't know that it's 100% necessary to say that they can't serve breakfast but I think that that's been sort of determined in other locations to distinguish between the two so okay thank you any more questions toronto i do have a question i'm trying to find some more material here but as we're going through the process i am seeing that just some conflicting information so the zota is one piece of a two-part initiative and that's where we're going to talk about land use which is what we're doing and then revenue concerns which is what evans working through and we have got a text amendment that we're talking about a two-part process but then you just said that now we have a third part that's going to be a nit talking about ag uses from the rural land management who's another group that's then going to submit azota how can we solve that problem and get something done now where we have it addressed now as at least a placeholder the rural stakeholders were not really included in the work group conversations that have been ongoing for the past couple of years and then you all had once it was initiated you all had 60 days to act on it so it really was not feasible for the rural stakeholders to get together and to come up with something that they could all agree on to put forward as part of this soda so we really sort of had conversations with them and decided that it would be better for the Rural Land Management Board to work on that and to come forward with something sort of on their own timeline to give them that ability to really come up with something that is tailored to the Ag Zones. Okay, so they didn't have enough time to participate, so some more time was allowed through what will look like an additional ZODA to address Ag. Yes, it will be an additional ZODA. This ZODA does not touch the Ag Zones other than in regard to the ones that are existing, just allowing them to get a license and to continue need to operate under the old interpretation. Yeah. My comment on that is I think we're going to see a lot of comments about not enough time as we've been working on this from 2019 to all of a sudden we need to make a decision now. Sure. So it looks like it's going to be more than a two-part process. It's going to be a three-part process, possibly more. I would say that it's the two-part process is this ZODA that addresses our urban zones and the code of ordinances working together once it gets back to council. So we just really want you to be aware of the code of ordinance changes, but for you it's not really a two-step process. You're really just looking at the ZODA, but we need you to be aware of the code of ordinance changes because they are going to impact the sort of enforcement options and that sort of thing. I understand that. Yeah, I understand that it's just parsing one out to be addressed with more time had to be clarified by you all to me right here. Thank you. Yes, one more question please, Autumn. So you mentioned there were 15 meetings between what, 2022 and 2023? Yes. And the stakeholders that were participating in those were? So that was planning came into this a little bit later. We were not involved beginning in February when this started. March of 2022, we came in probably over the summer. So we did not attend all of those meetings. But I think, as I said in my presentation, we're aware that there were a few of a few neighborhoods that were represented. I think a lot of those stakeholders were operators. I know that I think Gratz Park, Ashland Park, and Kenwick were the three that I know for sure were involved in those conversations. And again, that was at the council work group. So a few neighborhood associations were involved and then some proprietors as well, but you haven't had a full hearing of both. So in November of 2022, there was a special meeting of the Planning and Public Safety Committee that was held in the evening and that was to provide public input on the draft that existed at that time. That draft has, based on those comments, been modified somewhat before it was initiated, before what you all have seen today. But again there were quite a, that room was fuller than this room today so there were a number of folks who came out and spoke at that time. And then from there staff took all that information and made these adjustments basically. Staff was involved in service to the work group so we helped them develop the language I would not say that that the language that was developed is entirely what staff would have done as a planning initiative and that's why you do see some staff alternative language here because it did come to staff as a ZODA at that point but yes we were involved in the original drafting to ensure that it would fit in with our zoning ordinance thank you Okay, thank you, Autumn. Before we get up to citizen comments, we do have Councilmember at large James Brown would like to make a statement. Oh, with Councilmember Liz Sheehan as well. So it's kind of weird calling y'all two up to the podium. Do they only get three minutes? Yeah. Do y'all have to get three minutes, too? We get all the time. I was going to do this. It shouldn't take three minutes. So thank you, Chair, and thank you, Planning Commission, for hearing us out and giving us opportunity to speak. We just wanted to kind of let you know all the work that went into creating the policy that we put forth. We were intentional. We heard or were hearing from neighborhoods about their concerns with short-term rentals. We, the previous council, had took a look at the first part of it, which is creating a registry and establishing that categorization with our revenue department. But what we heard loud and clear is that we weren't addressing the land use part of it. So that's this ZODA that you have before you today. So we went back. We reached out to some folks that were in some neighborhoods that we had heard complaints from. We reached out to some operators who had made themselves known that they were concerned about this policy, and we started these stakeholder meetings. As you can tell, there's a lot of people here today. We've been getting a lot of e-mails. There's a lot of council members here as well, so there's a lot of public interest in how this policy rolls out. There's a lot of nuance, and there's a lot of give and take with this policy that we've worked through and developed in the policy that we put forward. The public hearing that we had in 2022 in November, we got a lot of input on the first version of the policy that we put out. We went back with the planning staff, with the law department, made some significant changes to it and put it out. And over the last few months, myself and Council Member Sheehan have been going around the city kind of telling folks what this policy does and does not do. Other cities are faced with the same challenges, and as you heard from Autumn, who did a great job of her presentation, they're still dealing with it. They put out a policy, have looked at it again, are making changes, and I'm confident that we're going to have to do the same thing. But I think the policy that we put forward without the staff recommendation or staff changes gives us a good baseline to put something in place that protects our neighborhoods but also set expectations for operators. There's two changes in the policy that really concern me. One of them is the occupancy capacity. Our first iteration of the draft allowed for two people per bedroom plus an additional four with no max. We heard from neighborhoods that not having a max was a concern, so then we maxed it out at 12 or whichever was less. just because we know neighborhoods are different, properties are different, and some properties in some neighborhoods can take a higher capacity and some cannot. So that's why our first draft didn't have that. And then once we looked at it and heard the neighborhood was concerned, we put a limit on it. The other thing that we put in our policy was the right for the use to go forward with the change of ownership. And we did that because that's consistent, or what we heard is that's consistent with our current conditional use policies. And the protections that we put for neighborhoods that we put in place in our policy, I think will give us as the city an opportunity to address operators that aren't operating in the best interest of the neighborhood. So we think that protection is in there for our communities. If we find out that it needs to be stricter, then I think that's something that we can change later. If we find out that there's other changes that need to be made in the policy, I think that's something that we would be open to make. But until we get a registry in place and know how many short-term rentals there are operating, and we know where they are and set expectations for operators and neighborhoods, then we can't get off of square one. We do recognize the economic tourism benefit to the communities. issues. And then we also recognize how folks feel about their neighborhoods and the places they live and that this is a commercial use in residential neighborhoods. But a lot of the issues and I'll tell you from somebody being on council for a while. A lot of the complaints and calls that we received in the early years before short term rentals first came online. I think operators in neighborhoods have worked to address those issues. So we think a lot of that has been addressed and I think that you know I won't dismiss I know there's still some concerns and still some issues but I think we need to know where they are and how many they are to work through them. Council member did you want to ask something? I think you covered everything that I would say. I do want to reiterate how much time and consideration and the voices that were heard as we went through this process and came up with the drafted proposal that was sent to you originally so I would kind of echo those current concerns and then with the staff changes particularly with the occupancy rate considering the conversations that we went through to get there and then the transfer of the conditional use was something that we we again went back and forth about and talked with a lot of people about so we considered all of that in arriving in the to the policy that we had put forward so yeah and I will say the conditional use not moving forward creates a scenario where we could devalue property and I think that's a real concern for not just property owners but also neighborhoods and I would note that in the current marriage proposed budget there is funding for software to to set up keeping track of where short-term rentals are located and and complaints and in other information relative to that use so we are planning for it thank you thank you thank you both citizen comments you can do so by stepping up to the podium say your name address Walt The three minutes? Yes, just a reminder. There's three minutes. Will we have the timer up? I'm not quite ready to speak yet. No, no, you're fine. You take your time. We were efficient. I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. Before I start, I'd like to thank staff. Once, you know, once this ZODA got to the Planning Commission, they've been very helpful in explaining it to us and meeting. And, you know, we understood it better and agreed on more things. That doesn't mean we agreed on everything, but, I mean, that would be a miracle, I think. But I do think they've been very professional, and I appreciate it. This has been a tough process because of the way it's happened. it's been a compressed time frame so it's been very difficult and this is a very difficult soto so it's been hard to analyze i also i mean i'm going to ask the chair for a favor we had we had six people lined up to speak this afternoon but two of whom can't get here until four o'clock and we thought well we've all have experience with this and we just figured four o'clock should be fine but but you you had a really quick agenda today much to our surprise i can get through this pretty quickly if I do it myself I have three speakers instead of six one told me at 1230 that she just didn't want to speak because she's nervous so it's one of those deals I can get through this fairly quickly I do it myself which would make it even quicker if you'd like so what's your ask because you have my ask is can I just run that there are 26 slides I can probably knock it out in about 15 minutes and without without hurrying you and I think you'll at least find out where the neighborhood council is on it. And I think it would be educational for the audience. I could also ask people if they would donate their time to me. No, we can't donate time. That's fine. You had to email this Tuesday, and I replied back and said that you have three minutes. Oh, I didn't know. I didn't get it. You didn't get that? No, you didn't email me. You emailed staff. I emailed staff back, and I'm pretty sure they got back with you. I hope so. Well, you can let me go until I get tired. until you get tired of me. It's kind of... No, I don't want to do that. I like you. It's three minutes, and then it depends on how many people talk. Hopefully they can get here in time. Because we've got to be out of here by five. Okay. Then what I'll do, I will... I'm going to start then into the presentation a little bit when we actually talk about the ordinance. And maybe the three of us can knock it out. I can't answer that. No, I can't answer why he. Hi there. My name is Janet Cabanis. I live at 704 Cumberland Road. And I think I know what I'm doing here. This is kind of informal because it is. First of all, we want everyone to know that there are differences between hosted and unhosted short-term rentals. Hosted is, in the ordinance, is defined as anyone living at least 275 days in a short-term rental of the year, and they don't have to be an owner. They can be an employee. They can be a renter who has decided to take that role. Unhosted is not having a host. They just have renter. So we're just trying to get those descriptions across. If the host does not have to be the owner of the property, then hosting is not material. An occupancy of eight should require a hearing, in our opinion. An occupancy of four should not. And you've heard that there are various prescriptions of the 8 and the 4 and the 12, which we don't like anyway. Hosted STRs may have up to eight short-term renters without a hearing, without public notice, or density restrictions. That is as written. We go into accessory uses. Accessory uses by ordinance are uses and structures which are customarily accessory, clearly incidental, and subordinate to permitted uses like a garage. Okay, you can build a garage, and that's an accessory to your house. You don't have to have a garage in order to occupy that residence. You don't have to have a short-term rental in order to occupy that residence. If you do have either a garage or short-term rentals, that's an accessory to the primary use of the principal use. Adding a host who can be compensated for being the employee who serves as the host does not necessarily make the short-term rental use accessory. And accessory use should not dominate the principal use that requires a principal. We'll go on beyond that. Okay. It is true that we did have one meeting of Fayette County Neighborhood Council at which the planning people came, and 100% of those at that planning meeting, at our general meeting. Ma'am, your time is up. Ma'am, excuse me, ma'am, your time is up. Okay, that's on page 12 that you have, 100%. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Yes, you can do that at the podium. We won't start it until you start. Yes, ma'am. Where's the clicker? I got it. Okay. What's it doing? Okay, that's where we are. Okay. I've been checked out on the clicker. Okay, we're started. My name is Lynn Flynn and I live on Spring Hill Drive in Lexington. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you all very briefly. The slide relates to the current occupancy. What we're talking about here is the current occupancy for rentals in Lexington. Under the proposed ordinance, occupancy would have twice the currently allowed occupancy for unrelated renters and would increase from 4 to 8. That would be if the staff proposal is adopted. If the council proposal, it would increase from 4 to 12. That's a lot of people in the middle of a neighborhood. May not be a problem for a house. May be a problem for the neighborhood with all those extra folks coming in. Autumn explained it pretty well. Density is probably the key thing we need to talk about. I appreciated the question about that earlier. As indicated, the Louisville ordinance requires that short-term rentals must be 600 feet apart. In Lexington, there are no density requirements for accessory use short-term rentals, and we believe that all short-term rentals with an occupancy maximum of four should be a conditional use. The current proposal includes no objective standards for the Board of Adjustment. It just has them look at short-term rentals within 1,000 feet, and we would propose a very clear objective standard for density. I'm going to skip a couple here. Let's see. An accessory-use short-term rental house can have up to eight short-term renters. Each could be very close to each other. You're talking about potentially clustering short-term rentals within a neighborhood and going to the situation where we visit and in off-season, there's nobody there. There are no residents. There are short-term rentals. Guidance for the Board of Adjustments should be strengthened. We feel very strongly. Again, I'm going to skip a couple. Implement the Louisville ordinance keeping short-term rentals 600 feet apart. Let's go with the 600 feet. Let's make it clear and a requirement. Change the Board of Adjustment to consideration of cited nuisances in the vicinity. Citations are not usually issued when there are complaints made. It would be much more useful to look at the valid complaints. It should be clear that all conditional use permits expire when a short-term rental is sold. Short-term rentals with a permit are worth more, and a sale would increase property value and taxes in the vicinity for everybody else in the vicinity who's not a short-term rental. Existing short-term rentals would more tend to remain short-term rentals if a permit carried forward with the property. The next owner could certainly apply for a conditional use permit. And she quiets down now. Thank you all very much. I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. And I'm gonna continue to talk about density. Okay. I think, you know, I wanna talk about the thousand foot we'll look at at Board of Adjustments standard as opposed to having a guaranteed 600 feet. One, it would require a neighborhood pretty much go to the Board of Adjustment with an unknown standard and probably would require an attorney to argue the point with whoever wanted to make it closer or do something like that. And that's really unfair to neighborhoods without resources and it's just not equitable. Neighborhood clustering, we're concerned about that, particularly if on an accessory use, a person can have eight renters or something like that. And they're not subject to density requirements anymore, so they can cluster a few in one place in a neighborhood, and pretty soon you've got three or four, you've got 24 visitors. So that's the primary reason, I think, for wanting the lower occupancy clause. Now, I think the reason we're mostly concerned about that is because the definition of hosting is not like Louisville's. They require that an owner be present for there to be an accessory use. This ordinance says instead that basically anybody can be present. You can bring in a renter, let them pay half rent, and they're there, and then you don't have to fool with density. You don't have to fool with lots of things. And also you can go to the Board of Adjustment any time you want to increase the occupancy. So when you throw all the pieces together, it makes it a difficult situation for neighborhoods. I've got a list of recommendations for you. I do want to talk about one of them a little bit more. The primary reason for wanting a conditional use to lapse upon sale, well, we've already talked about it, would raise taxes because it would raise property values, affordable housing and equity are two major considerations of the Comprehensive Plan. And I think you need to pay attention to what's in the Comprehensive Plan. And I think both of those are critical issues for you and should be. And I'm going to stop early. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to provide you with some answers or try. Thank you. Thank you, Will. Is there any other citizens that would like to speak? You can stand up to the podium, yes sir. My name is Chris Eustis. I'm an Airbnb super host. I'm also a neighbor. The proposal you have on and short-term rentals comes from it being thrown at us. Why should we regulate a business class that is already regulated? It benefits hotels and big landlords. They are already getting millions of dollars in government subsidies. Is it because they are such poorly run businesses that they can't make it alone without taxpayer dollars? The Airbnbs put nearly 100% of their profits into the local economy, whereas much of the big hotel and landlord corporate profit goes out of state. It is a double standard, an economic apartheid. Airbnb hosts do the right thing. They register as business. We're already registered. Pay taxes and maintain the properties. Meanwhile, for decades, absentee slubloids around the University of Kentucky have created havoc and are a danger to the community by allowing poor maintenance, overcrowding, street trash, and even violence. and Lexington does little to stop this with code enforcement and the other agencies. If you think this new ordinance will stop the bad apples, you're mistaken. We already have these regulations, and the enforcement of these regulations has been poor and impotent. The hosts for Airbnbs are ambassadors for Lexington. My house is incredibly diverse. The argument that Airbnb dwelling units increase rental rates at apartment complexes is false. Greed does. The council could enact rent stabilization ordinances to prevent rental rates from skyrocketing and have affordable housing. Other cities do this, and it works. But that would mean standing up to the big landlords. Instead, taxpayers have to pay millions of dollars for affordable public housing. The new proposed rule that prevents short-term rentals from being within 1,000 feet of each other will destroy short-term rentals alone. That's a 2,000-foot diameter. it will wipe out Kenwick and downtown short-term rentals in my neighborhood, which is Skycrest. I'm in District 11. By talking with Airbnb and studying their map, I found we have about 400 to 800 properties with listings for short-term rentals within the Bluegrass area of Lexington. There are about 20 in Kenwick. Airbnb keeps the address information private for business reasons and for safety reasons. The rule for 52 stays a year is bad because some properties have more than one listing, and 52 stays is not enough, and that will put them out of business. The flexibility of short-term rentals made the Breeders' Cup possible in Lexington. Do not pass this ordinance, any of it. We already have plenty of big government regulations. It will not help the neighborhoods. The misinformation is only dividing neighbors in favor of corporate interests. It is our jobs that are at stake. Do not take away our jobs. We are this short-term rental experts. Talk with us. Who do you work for? Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, sir. Just to clarify, there was two other citizens that were going to yield the time to me, but that's not possible, correct? Say again? There was two other citizens that had signed up to yield their time to me, but that's not possible. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, great. Well, thank you for having me. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to speak with you all today. My name is Seth Hillemeier. I'm a husband. I'm a father to three. I live here locally as a resident of District 5 my entire life. My family's been in Lexington now for seven generations, and it's important to me that Lexington is a great place to live, work, and visit. I'm a small business owner and an owner of multiple short-term rental properties in the Lexington area. I'd like to thank city council members and the zoning board for your work in proposing the regulations for short-term rentals. And as a responsible host, I understand the importance of regulating short-term rentals to ensure the safety and well-being of our guests, as well as minimize the impact on our communities. We believe that the regulations for short-term rentals are necessary and important to help protect and keep Lexington a great place to live. However, we are concerned about the recent changes that have been proposed and would be extremely detrimental to our business. At this point, we're unclear of the effect, but could result in us having to potentially sell our properties. Not only would this impact our business, but also the livelihoods of the team members, vendors, who depend on our business for their income. Losing respectable STR operators would also have a negative impact on our tourism and the local economy. specifically the new requirements around the maximum number of guests to eight and the proximity restrictions of a thousand feet. A max of eight guests is not consistent across the U.S. with regulating Airbnbs. We personally have several properties that are located within a thousand feet of each other and have been operating for years without complaints. This change in occupancy puts everything us operators have worked for in jeopardy. Our homes are specifically designed to cater towards multi-generational families. Our average guest count is usually 12 guests, and the guests that stay with us are not just tourists. They're local families staying for celebrations of life, graduations. We've had families here where their kids were getting medical treatments at UK. We've recently hosted someone who had their house burned down in Lexington. There's roughly 160 hosts slash properties in Lexington who were set up to handle more than a capacity of eight guests, and we're specifically asking you to grandfather in existing short-term rental operators and allow the flexibility of two guests per bedroom plus four as originally proposed by the City Council in their first draft. We understand if you choose to change the rules going forward, but specifically ask you not to change the rules on the people who have done this in a legal manner, abiding by the rules and regulation in place at the time we made major financial decisions. In conclusion, we request that you reconsider the recent changes to the proposed regulations and allow hosts to accommodate more than eight guests without having to go before a board of approval. We would be asking for disapproval of these new changes and feel that there's not been enough time provided to really respond appropriately. Thank you, Seth. Thank you. My name is Miranda Hinchman, and I'm also a mother here. I have a family. I live in this community. I graduated from the University of Kentucky. I care very much about the community, and I'm a good neighbor. I did my name. Miranda Hinchman. Yeah, no problem. You're fine. So I'll make this piece quick. I had someone else who was going to yield time. I understand that's not an option. That's fine. I don't think it should be limited by owner or by number or by distance. People oftentimes come to an Airbnb for an attraction, so we want to limit how many we can have around Reparina or near the university. I mean, I don't think that makes sense because it's the sole purpose that most times people come to an attraction. I'm not saying they don't go out to the wilderness for it, but that's not the common theme. It's for attractions. Limiting the number of people, I just, that's such a gray area, so 12 people can't be a wedding. You're restricting the number of people in a property, although a property may be able to hold it. But, you know, the main thing that stood out to me is I've kept asking, where is the report that talks about all the issues coming from it? Where is all the data or the statistics or the information that shows this is such an issue? No one can provide it. No one has it. It's anecdotal. And it's like I understand that that's important, but we can't put all of this in place just based on opinions. There needs to be some data to show that it's even an issue. So I think that's really important. We're going to be taking money out of the economy. I'm already talking to other owners that are going I'm pulling my money out of out of Lexington I'm not gonna do it I'm not gonna wait for the business to be hindered or me to lose my property or me not be able to sell it with that License and the value go down There's a lot of people taking their money out of town and taking it elsewhere And the less friendly that we are to people who want to come in and visit which is not just tourists It's locals as they mentioned its families. I get parents all the time coming in to visit kids at UK I think the license should convey with the property to for us to have earned that and take that away and impact our property value to me is an issue the other thing is not everybody wants to stay at a hotel you're going to restrict the number of Airbnbs or STRs or VR boats whatever you want to call them I have a kid-friendly property it has high chairs that has pack-and-plays it has outlet plugs baby gates hotels don't give you all that it's a different experience. STRs serve a purpose in the community, and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be right or shouldn't be done well or shouldn't be tracked, but we're trying to restrict something that's already pretty restricted without evidence that it's a massive issue other than people's opinions who really don't like them. So I would just like to see more data, but I respect that it does need to be tracked and there's income related to it and that needs to be paid into our communities. There's a lot of jobs it creates. There's a lot of revenue. The people that, you know, are near us, the restaurants near us, the businesses near us, they're happy we're there. And I can tell you a lot of us are going into our communities and we're buying the homes people didn't want that people may not have been taken care of and we're making them better. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Damon Snyder. I live at 704 Cumberland Road in the Stonewall neighborhood. My major objection to the Zota is for the SDR system that it seems to subjugate the rights of homeowners who made their largest investment of their lives a place to live to the rights of people who buy residents to enhance their incomes. Planning has intimated that the hard part of the STR legislation that it is trying to put a commercial venture in a residential area. STRs are clearly an income endeavor. Home ownership and neighborhood occupancy clearly are not. STRs change the character of an area. Changing neighborhood character is clearly not the intention of the Lexington Comprehensive Plans that I have dealt with as a neighborhood resident. Ask anyone who lives near a a well-used STR if the neighborhood character has changed? And the answer is likely to be less, be yes. Guidelines are definitely needed. Let's do it right and let's just consider the following. Number one, don't sabotage the neighborhood by allowing a new STR without notice to neighbors. They deserve to have at least the knowledge of what is about to happen. Make all new STRs be approved or denied in a hearing. Principal or accessory use alike need to let neighbors know. Number two, don't allow multiple STRs in our R1 residential block. Louisville requires that they be no closer than 600 feet from each other. We can and should do this also. Number three, limit the number of renters of an STR to a smaller number than 12 for a three-bedroom house. Two per bedroom seems adequate. Residential areas are for residing. Commercial businesses in commercial areas can accommodate partying. Number four, sunset STR licenses upon the sale of the STR. This gives ordinary buyers a better chance to purchase a former STR residence because the price of the for sale house won't be as high. Number five, be aware of the shortage of affordable housing in Lexington and do all that can be done to promote affordable housing prices, including not sitting back to watch bidding wars among investors and potential resident homebuyers. Number six, know that there is value in preserving neighborhoods and promoting residential camaraderie. Keep R in R1 and R2. In Stonewall, we have an aging-in-place nonprofit called Thriving-in-place Stonewall, in which neighbors break down isolation among residences and promote interaction among people who live there. Help Thriving-in-place Stonewall and other organizations have an abundance of all residences of all ages to help each other enjoy the life of a neighborhood. accommodate STRs but don't promote them. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Excuse me. I'm Brian Luffman, Mr. Chairman, former sir, and the names of the council. Thank you for having me. Thanks also to council members Brown and Sheehan for coming today and speaking and I really commend the staff for trying to struggle through this difficult thing to oversight. So I manage Bourbon House. I developed and operate Bourbon House on Maxwell and Broadway. It's a seven-bedroom short-term rental. I did that three years ago, and I've got two more that I'm starting. And the reason I'm expanding is because people really love having a seven-bedroom or more property that they can all stay together in a group. I've had big wedding parties come in. All the groomsmen stay there. or I had a graduation party last weekend during the Derby weekend and they had a huge like families from many generations coming to stay together and I think that that maximum that has been proposed by the staff is almost it's almost going to be a non-starter for in my opinion for many of the managers around here and so when you have the stakeholders that you're talking to most of the opposition from Airbnb and short-term rentals is coming from these neighborhood groups And I understand. That's why there's ordinances in places for sound and music and noise. There's also neighborhood parking restrictions that are in South Hill, which is where my properties are. People can't park around there. They have to have a pass. And that's something that you could instill to make sure that this doesn't happen in neighborhoods where the parking becomes a problem or noise becomes a problem. So the opposition is only coming from these neighborhood groups. When there's so many stakeholders that are pro-Airbnb, and it's not just the hosts, the Tourism Board loves the fact that we are bringing in, I mean, people are coming to my property, to Kentucky, just to have a place to all stay together. If that doesn't exist, how does that happen? And then restaurant owners, tour bus drivers, all of our cleaning staff, all these people that their businesses rely on us bringing people into Kentucky. And if you take that away and put a maximum on it, it seems ludicrous, in my opinion. So one thing to keep in mind is that tourism is, frankly, very good for Lexington. keeps our restaurants in good shape and all the other local businesses. And so it's a competitive market. And Louisville, Frankfurt, Bardstown, they're all trying to get the same tourist traffic that we are here in Lexington. And to put a restriction on us and make our properties less appealing because someone's typed in, I want to stay with my 15 friends, and they can't find anything for rent in Lexington or only a handful because those were approved with conditional use, that is very restrictive. And so I just hope that the board and the commission will make suggestions that are less restrictive than the Council has proposed, not more so. And that's really my ask to you. I really echo many of the sentiments that the other Airbnb hosts have had here because we're working very hard to bring tourists to Lexington. Please don't make it harder on us. Thank you very much. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Gregory Clark. I've lived here in Lexington for 40 years. About 10 or 12 years ago, I started my rental business. I have six units. They all have been renovated. They are meticulously in wonderful shape. I have a lot of, I'd say 60% of my guests are return guests. I know that I would consider myself an ambassador to Lexington because I arrange everything for my guests. I arrange airport pickups, I arrange restaurants, horse farm tours, I arrange bourbon trail, you name it. I will do it. and that's why I have such a success rate of return customers. Last year at Thanksgiving, I had four families come in, and they had never been to Lexington before. They came in because they were referred to my places. That's a lot of, I think it's good for Lexington. and I think that the stipulations that you all are imposing are really going to hurt. They likely will put me out of business because some families like to rent two different units in close proximity, and that's, in my case, that's been very beneficial. Let me see. I think with these stipulations, I mean, are hotels, are they subjected to all these ordinances and whatever that you're all proposing? Last year, I had three cancellations, only three cancellations. Why? Because of the drug-related problem in downtown Lexington. I feel that a better use of your all's time would be to turn your attention to those issues instead of zoning in on short-term rentals for a problem that simply doesn't exist. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hello. My name is Stephanie Clark, and I help manage reservations for several short-term rentals. I was here for the meeting in late 2022. It was held in the evening, and for that meeting there was standing room only in this room and into the overflow lobby. You couldn't find a seat and you couldn't hardly find any place to stand. It was in the evening. There aren't many people here today in defense of short-term rentals because it's in the middle of a workday. I think if you had a meeting in the evening, then you would see that crowd again. I just have a few questions slash comments. With over 1,000 short-term rentals in Lexington, where are the people who have personally had bad experiences with short-term rentals? They're owners for the guests. If there's over 1,000, and I think she said that there were only 60 people that showed up at the neighborhood council meeting to make very vague complaints. Why aren't they here? with no more than four unrelated guests allowed in each short-term rental. How do owners check that? You know, are hotels expected to abide by that sort of a regulation? You're going to get in a sticky spot there. You're trying to fix a problem that just does not exist. These are unnecessary and crushing regulations for small businesses that provide employment to so many in our community. Either we own our properties or we don't. You will destroy tourism and small businesses in our city while turning a blind eye to corporate hotels that are slowly taking over. This feels very punitive to short-term rental owners. Thank you all. Thank you. Hello, I am Emily Sharp. I'm the owner of Experience Days Property Management Company. To begin, I'm the oldest of five kids, making a family of seven. And when we traveled, we included our grandparents everywhere we went. If we weren't able to find somewhere that accommodated at least nine people, we had to find somewhere else to go, a different city. After hosting several large families in Lexington, I know limiting the occupancy to eight would be a major issue. Every property we manage has noise monitors and designated parking for one to two cars, based on the driveway. We also screen our guests very hard before allowing them into our homes. We have managed properties for a year and a half with zero complaints from neighbors and zero issues with any guest. I'm unsure why we are regulating this. Secondly, as a property manager, if my client wants to sell a home and still recommend me to manage it to a new buyer, they wouldn't be able to do so because the new buyer would be subject to a conditional use permit. Not only does this jeopardize the sale, but my income as a manager, my cleaner's income, and every vendor we use. With all that being said, I'm really proud of this city. I started this company to help guests and tourists experience Lexington like you and I would. I want guests to experience Kenwick Table, near Twin Brewing, shop at the Blushery, or even love Lexington so much that their children decide to go to UK. Limiting how many people we welcome to Lexington not only impacts the short-term rental industry, but it impacts the tourists, local restaurants, vendors, and our tourism department, which will all create a negative decline on our economy. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Gary Chudister. I'm here as a member of the management team for the Farm LLC located in Danville, Kentucky. The farm is a family-centered, short estate home in not only Kentucky but five other states. We're not renting small homes. These are 10,000 to 15,000 square feet homes. These are homes that would be sitting empty if it was not for there being folks that are willing to come in and manage and then have other people come and stay. I'll use my family as an example. My wife's a lot smarter than me. She decided with the 10 grandkids we need to have Christmas in September. So what we've been doing is a family of 17 would come and stay in one of the farm homes here in Lexington. There's three. And for four days, we stay in Lexington. We shop, we eat, we play. Neighbors don't have a problem. But as soon as we leave, and as soon as we leave, there's another group of 15 to 20 that is ready to come and be a part of the experience of Lexington. More than a dozen families were able to go to the Derby this past Saturday who chose to stay in Lexington and have us take them to Louisville to experience that. Our concern with this number going from 12 to 8, and we would like the possibility of exempting children, because we want this to be a children family experience, if you exempt children from this number. Because for us, if you make it 8, and my brother and my sister and we bring our family, there's no room for grandma. There's no room for granddad. And for the Chettester family, we want this to be a family experience. I completely respect that there's bad things that happen. But bad things happen everywhere. Bad things happen in neighborhoods where there's nobody renting a house. We would ask that you truly look and see where those bad eggs are. And there's bad eggs. There's no disputing that. But we're just simply asking for an opportunity to stay in Fayette County. We would love to purchase another five homes here, but we can't because we're waiting to see what you all are going to do with this and what that number is going to be. We would appreciate it if you would exclude children and raise that number up higher for families as they come and be a part of this. Thank you all for your time and your consideration. Thank you. Hi, my name is Sherry Graham-Green, and I wanted to express my concerns about some of the proposals that you all have talked about today. With regards to the 1,000-foot radius, I think it's arbitrarily restrictive, as well as allowing only 52 bookings per year. As a licensed Airbnb person, I'm already paying taxes, 8.5% for local transient room tax, 4% going to visit Lex, and an additional 1% for state transient room tax. And that all gets taxed at 6%. Some of the points that I wanted to discuss about the 1,000-foot rule, I have a map of, Meddlethorpe is up here. And you can see in Meadowthorpe, I know that there are about 12 Airbnbs, and my house is about in the center where that star is. In the 1,000-foot, I used the Google Maps app to show distance, and I was able to determine that that encompasses most of Meadowthorpe. And I know that there, with those 12 Airbnb units there, that that would really restrict. And how would the council determine who gets to keep their Airbnbs and who wouldn't? So that is one concern of mine. And I know that if you look at that and use that Google Maps tool and look at any of the surrounding areas, you know, downtown, historic South Hill, Woodward Heights, and other of those areas, you would find that there's probably about 15 to 20 Airbnbs within that proximity. So I don't know how you would figure out who gets to keep those Airbnbs. Airbnbs. I don't see that 15 to 20 listings per area is going to really impact the hotel industry. They are already getting lots of benefits that Airbnb owners don't get. As far as short-term rentals reducing affordable housing, why would the Council see the authority to infringe on the rights of property owners to make decisions about how to use their property? The owner of the property has the right and freedom to choose whether to provide short-term rental or provide housing on a longer-term basis. Lexington is aware and is working to make affordable housing available through various grants and programs. As for the concern that short-term rentals open up the possibility of nuisance reports, I wonder if the Council has specific police data which determines what number of nuisance reports occur at short-term rentals compared to apartments, residences, and even hotels. And looking at the map of Lexington on Airbnb, there's probably 400 to 600 rentals available and within the bounds of New Circle Road. I don't know how many other types of rentals are available, such as VRBO. But Visit Lex, if you look on their website, it shows that unique places is one of the things that we're promoting in our community. And so I think that there might be some overlap on registering for short-term sites. But as a hosted rental, I do recognize that there also are unhosted rentals, and that's a concern in terms of nuisance. In Meadowthorpe, I looked up the short-term rental for Airbnb for the dates of April 5th through 8th, and there's a range of $79 a night all the way up to $528 per night. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Robert Braddon, and I'm here on behalf of Experience Days as well. We are a property management company here in Lexington. About a year ago, I moved back to Lexington. I was gone for a stint of probably five years, and I lived in Tampa, Florida, and I moved back with a vision and a dream to start my own business and give people that come to Lexington the same feeling that I get while I'm here and why I love it. And we are able to do that with everybody that comes and stays with us at our short-term rentals. You know, putting an ordinance on the occupancy and restricting the occupancy, whether it be the amount of people that stay or how many nights they're able to rent out the properties, that's detrimental to not only our company, but it's detrimental to our local economy as well. I can't tell you how many times people will come and message us and ask us, you know, where do you want to eat tonight or where would you eat tonight or where would you go to get a drink or anything like that. And we always, you know, we always lead them to a local business that reaps the benefits of our guests. Not only that, but our company also has third-party vendors. Fortunately, our cleaning lady is one of our people that keeps our business going, and she's been able to start her own business and provide for her family. And, you know, restricting the turnover and the occupancy of these properties is not only going to restrict her income, it's going to restrict our income. And I think it will be detrimental to both of our businesses and our local economy. So I really hope you guys take in consideration of that, and thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm John Grimes. I live at 272 Sherman Avenue in Kenwick. My experience is not that positive with these short-term rentals. I have one next door. I have one across the street. There's two up the street. On the corner of Sherman and Menifee, there's one that sleeps 20. So they're really proliferating in my neighborhood. None of these appear to me as being hosted. The problem is these are unhosted. There's no one there to monitor what's going on. There's no security. You know, I have sympathy for people who open their house up and host people, and I think the rules should be less demanding for those types of people. But those types of Airbnbs are very rare, at least in my opinion. Most are people who own multiple properties. Most are LLCs, limited liability corporations. So the small mom and pop Airbnb is pretty rare. So my experience is, yes, lots of problems with the nuisances, parties, noise, litter, parking issues. But my concern is mostly with safety, having strangers come and go all the time. And again, any one group, you know, that might not be a huge risk, but, you know, 32 times a year, times how many you have around you. There's a lot of strangers coming and going, and I prefer not to be around that. Most Airbnb operators don't want to be around it either. They don't host it, right? They're somewhere else. So they seem to be acknowledging this as well, this danger as well. The other issue is that these are residential spaces being used commercially. So the way they're built, the buildings, you know, these are houses. They don't have carbon monoxide detectors. They don't have sprinkler systems. Are we going to regulate these like they are being used as commercial spaces? We need rules that are clear, easy to interpret, and straightforward to enforce. Right now, we don't even have enforcement on the number of bookings per year. We don't have access to the platforms. We have no idea if they're limiting themselves to 32 per year. And the whole thing about the number of guests, we can't really regulate that because of the exceptions for relatives. So what about the economic impacts? Well, if all the short-term rentals disappeared tomorrow, visitors would still come to Lexington. They would just stay in hotels. You have a big party, you have adjoining rooms. It's doable, right? It's not impossible. All that economic impact would be captured by the hotels we wouldn't lose So these are commercial establishments. That's what planning says Will they have to meet commercial building code they should I? Think visitors should have the same level of safety depending on whether they're in a hotel or in a Airbnb. Thank you. Thank you Hi, I'm James Wilcox, District 6 Airbnb Community Leader. Today I stand before you to shed light on the positive impact of short-term rentals on communities and the local economy. In recent years, the rise of platforms such as Airbnb has revolutionized the way we travel and experience new destinations. While some may view short-term rentals with skepticism, it is essential to recognize the numerous benefits they bring to Lexington. First, short-term rentals inject vitality into local economies and neighborhoods. Travelers who choose these accommodations often spend more time exploring the surrounding areas and frequenting local businesses. They dine at neighborhood restaurants, shop at local stores, and engage with community services. This increased foot traffic leads to a surge in revenue for local entrepreneurs, which benefits both residents and the local neighborhoods. Furthermore, short-term rentals provide an avenue for homeowners and residents to unlock additional income streams. Many individuals have found themselves able to supplement their finances by renting out their spare rooms or even their entire properties for short stays. This newfound income often allows them to invest in their homes, undertake renovations, or pursue personal aspirations. This economic empowerment at the individual level cascades into improved financial well-being for families and ultimately strengthening the overall economy. This also increases net profits for our city of Lexington. Another aspect of short-term rentals is their potential to foster cultural exchange and promote diversity. Travelers seeking authentic experiences and wanting to live like a local often choose to stay in residential neighborhoods, immersing themselves in the local community. This interaction between visitors, hosts, and residents fosters mutual understanding, breaks down cultural barriers, and creates a sense of global interconnectedness. It is through these interactions that we cultivate a richer, more inclusive society, celebrating our differences and embracing our shared humanity. Moreover, short-term rentals can be a catalyst for urban restoration. In many cities, neighborhoods that were once overlooked have experienced revitalization due to the presence of short-term rentals. Property owners are incentivized to improve the quality of their accommodations and enhance the overall appeal of the area. Furthermore, short-term rentals generate income that often encourages homeowners to invest in eco-friendly upgrades such as energy-efficient appliances and renewable energy sources. As we embrace the potential of sharing economy, let us recognize the positive impact that short-term rentals bring to our communities. With over 430 signatures on a change.org position, for you to reconsider these changes in less than 24 hours, that should speak volumes. Thank you. Hello, I'm Burgess Carey, and I'm the published representative of the Clay's Ferry Neighborhood Association. The Clay's Ferry Neighborhood Association was formed as directed by the city's guidelines because we had a unique issue, our impacts from the interstate at I-75 and our opportunities for tourism because of the river were unique from the surrounding neighborhood associations. I mention all that because there's a group here that has allegedly been involved in this that is not a neighborhood association. They are not registered as a neighborhood association. And I think that's very important. I'm the only representative I've seen speak who's actually representative of a neighborhood association. Our situation in Clay's Ferry is unique because we have a multitude of non-conforming lots that are zoned AR. They're not appropriate for net agriculture. They were never built for agriculture. By not including the AR, these properties will not have the opportunity, especially in lieu of the city's purchase of a park along the river, to take advantage of potentially additional income streams to improve their property and promote tourism in our county. That's my primary reason for being here. But I think it's very important also to address why this is being left out of the AR, 70% of our land, and our admitted and advertised priority for tourism in this community. There have been a lot of really good points here on both sides about regulating STRs and how to do that the best way, and I don't envy your job in doing so. But it is unfair to leave out the majority of this county from this opportunity, especially if it's going to be regulated. Now, having sent this to the Rural Land Management Board and potentially pushing this to the Council gives the Rural Land Management Board entire control over whatever is proposed. The Clay's Ferry Neighborhood Association was never invited to the table, and I would love to hear from any of the others that actually were. We have not been in discussions about this. The Rural Land Management Board is in charge of administering the PDR program. This additional income stream will make the purchase of development rights in the AR more expensive. And I hope you all will consider that if you decide to do something and separate out 70% of our county. My ask is that you vote to include the regulations as you see fit, but that you're inclusive of the entire county and don't ignore the potential of the benefits of AR from now and in the future. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Amy Clark. I speak for myself. 628 Castle Road. You have a lengthy thing and I'll get through what I can. I first want to observe and this isn't on there that it's very important to notice that there is no argument offered that this ZODA is in agreement with our 2018 comprehensive plan nor that it furthers provision or even conservation of needed housing in Lexington I would also like to say that the 15 meetings of which much has been said they were not open meetings maybe one or two and I personally believe that the staff and their remarks does not represent my views and the things I offered the staff in the meetings I was present for, although I'm grateful that they offered that option. I'm going to start with the bottom paragraph. Do we need to legitimize and regulate current practice with the ZODA proposed so as to institute any regulation at all? I think we keep hearing now it's a Wild West. There's no regulation. We need this ZODA. By no means. The present so-called short-term rentals are not unregulated. Their zoning and use regulations, your province, are simply unenforced. Currently, the use belongs to residential rental, plain and simple. It comprises simply the shortest-term legitimate rental of a residential dwelling, which is to say one week. But what enforcement officer can investigate, cite, and bring into compliance this abuse of a rental dwelling by landlords for travelers who are literally here today, gone tomorrow? So now I'm going up to paragraph two. I would ask first that you harmonize our local regulation with recent state statute adopting the state working definition and description of this use. They call it transient rental. Accommodations rented for a continuous period of less than 30 days take special care to include the special protection explicitly for people who live here but rent for a shorter term than a month because usually they're facing economic constraints on keeping stable housing and the last thing we want to do is make it worse for them, but fundamentally call short-term, transient, anything less than 30 days. This definition makes clear that anything shorter than a month is transient rental, a use different from residential and to be regulated differently. This is not business. This is people living here. If we simply strike the word weekly from our current definition of dwelling unit in the zoning ordinance, we get a long way. This makes regulation possible. And I will simply say that you cannot make good ZOTAs with three-minute packages of time. Thank you. I won't need my three minutes, but my name is Todd Saladin. I live on Limestone. I teach at UK, but I enjoy renovating properties. Me and my wife have spent five years renovating three properties, and I'm a little worried about the proximity or density issue. Two of our properties are adjacent to each other. I live there next to that property. So in essence, I'm assuming that I'm just going to have to sell my properties then. I won't be able to operate. We have really nice Airbnbs. We've helped the adjacent homeowners. I cut grass. I pick up trash. And the other thing, too, is we have wealthy people coming to Lexington that stay at our rentals. And they interject money into the economy. And I don't think anybody's coming here to go on a crime spree. They're coming here to enjoy Lexington. And that's what these properties do. They allow people to come in, whether there's 12 people there or four people. So the proximity issue is the one that I kind of wanted to address. 600 feet or you start going to 1,000 or 2,000. I'm a surveyor. How do you figure that out? Do you draw a radius? Do you do it by middle of the street, corner? how would that all be determined? Okay. Okay. So that's all I really wanted to talk about. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. I'm Beth Overman, the PDR director, and I staff the Rural Land Management Board. And I just wanted to let you all know and provide a little clarification for what Mr. Nickel asked earlier about the AR. So Council Members Sheehan and Brown came to our April 26 board meeting and asked us to please look at this because the rural area was not included in their review. And part of that is because ADUs have not yet been addressed in the rural area. When the council did that a couple years ago, it was only inside the urban service boundaries, you all likely know. Also, one thing that a lot of people don't realize is that the definition of farm employee dwelling unit or tenant house only allows farm owners and family members who work on the farm to live there. So if you have a parcel in the rural area and you have more than one house on it, technically you're supposed to be in the primary residence. And anyone else, if you have a guest, a tenant house or anything like that, legally the definition, you're only supposed to have your farm workers or things. So it's not supposed to be a rental. So we need to look at that definition, how this would impact that. We also, the Kentucky revised statutes now allow farm stays, which is an interactive experience, kind of like our horse country tours, but there would be overnight stays, so it would be an immersive experience, and we want to look at that in Lexington. So it's not anything for, they didn't come to us or we're not involved to try to block anything, it's to look at the big picture because that hasn't been addressed for the rural area. So we are planning to do that. Margaret Graves that is on our board is planning to chair that committee. Mary Quinn Raymer who is on our board is going to serve on that and we have an LBAR representative Hannah Emag who's going to be on that so it's going to be a group of several people looking at that over the summer and we hope to report back in the fall. Thank you. Thank you. I'm district 8 I have two other properties at 8 and where else do I have them I can't remember I wrote it down we've heard so much today district 3 district 1 so much has been said I think one of the things that I've thought though about as we've we've heard both sides of everything something it's taken a lot just to get to this point and sometimes we say you know once we make the decision then the decisions made and it's easy I found with anything a life once you make the decision the next part is even harder so I haven't heard a whole lot talked about how we actually this is a clunky it feels clunky it feels heavy how are we thinking through we heard about software what about the people the resources the software the timeline those are things that as a short-term owner I haven't heard much about I'm sure all that's happening and being talked about but I just want to bring up that that's critically important as a shirt to owner and several residents as I look at the tax dollars all the money that's being spent all these people are saying the same things our lives are invested in this and the people in the neighborhood are also saying the same thing they have concerns how are we really going to make this happen and what's a realistic timeline as we kind of finalize all these things and make and continue to make this a partnership for Lexington and the short-term owners and the neighborhoods that's it thank you has anyone else I think we covered Adam got some notes here I just want to clarify a few things that came up several times let's see so start off there was a lot of discussion about hotels and I just want to note that hotels are heavily regulated at the state level I'm not an expert in that but they are are pretty significantly regulated and that those are not in residential zones so that's that's the really big difference between why there may be different regulations for short term rentals wanted to clarify the the change in ownership null and void so the way that the ordinance is written with the staff of alternative language if you look for short terminals that go to the Board of Adjustment for a conditional use those would not necessarily have a null and void clause should the property change ownership that is only for the ones that are currently operating that would be essentially grandfathered in as non-conforming uses because those have never been to the Board of Adjustment staff felt that it would be appropriate for the a new owner to come in and go to the board to give that level of evaluation there was some discussion about the the primary resident and we can get into that if you have questions about it that's defined in the code of ordinances portion the I think the statement was that that is not a property owner and that is correct that the primary resident does not have to be a property owner it has to be someone who lives on the property as their primary residence we heard a few of the operators say that they're already licensed and regulated so I wanted to touch on that because I figured there might be questions currently any business is required to have a business license through revenue so that's what they have but it's not associated with the particular short-term rental operation so we don't have any record of where the short-term rentals are just because someone has a business license we don't know how many units they're operating or anything like that as far as building code concerns staff did have conversations with building inspection and code enforcement they did not have any concerns about an occupancy of 8 or of 12 the building maintenance code regulates the number of people that are to be allowed in a structure based on square footage and the the ratio for that is pretty high so the the 8 to 12 is not concerning to them and it's noted that vacation rentals are specifically called out in the residential building code so these would not have to be regulated under the commercial building code and then I just wanted to finally touch on the existing short-term rental operators you heard a lot of folks say that this is going to end their business that they're gonna have to sell their property they're gonna have to leave with the way that the ordinance is drafted the existing short-term rental operators would be able to come in as non-conforming uses but with some added benefits based on the the drafted language so I'll kind of go through what what an existing operator would have to do and we'll assume that this is one that would be an unhosted use that's a conditional use in the future so they would have to get their license they would not be able to use any detached structure unless it was a permitted ADU which is already should be the case they would be limited to eight occupants currently they should be occupant they should be limited to four so they would be able to increase to eight if they wanted more than eight they could go to the Board of Adjustment and apply for a conditional use they would no longer be limited to 52 rentals a year they could increase that however many rentals per year but they would be able to stay where they are existing regardless of the limitations in that table for how many units can be on a property regardless of that guidance for a thousand feet and again that is a guidance for the Board of Adjustment that's not a hard number and I think you heard kind of on both sides of that why having a hard number is maybe a little bit tricky if they did sell a property the the conditional use would become null and void so the next owner would have to go back to the board for a conditional use and then otherwise they would have to adhere to the provision related to parties so just to clarify that the short-term rental operators that are in operation would largely be able to continue to operate see I think that's all the notes that I had I'm happy to answer any questions that you have yes autumn yeah mr. nickel yes um okay autumn as we look to article 3 section 3-13 G and we're looking at for short-term rentals regulated as conditional uses the Board of Adjustments shall take into consideration why are we making recommendations for things to be taken into consideration how is that used in their decision-making process do they just note that it is within a thousand feet or not note so I think the intent behind take into consideration is to to do that so essentially whenever that application came to staff we would look at a map and we would draw a radius around that property of a thousand feet and we would look at what's going on in that 1,000 feet and know how many other short-term rentals are operating there and you know are there attractions there are there what's the infrastructure like what are the facilities like and then in our staff report we would make a recommendation we would sort of discuss what that 1,000 feet means in that particular location and then the board would they would hear that they would evaluate that so I think that's what take consideration means in that instance and then if that were removed that would not be taken into consideration but would be would be the other three which be a compliance occupancy rate and check and see if there's been any nuisance around that area that's correct I think that it would probably still generally be evaluated in our review that's typical for all conditional uses you know you're looking at what's going on in that particular location and its surroundings so it would still be evaluated to an extent but I mean we wouldn't have the hard number of a thousand feet to look at but that yes what you're saying every conditional use is evaluated based on what you're requesting and where you're requesting it so that's what I thought I'm just uncomfortable with this or what seems to be an arbitrary number being of a thousand feet being put in there whether it's 600 or a thousand or zero over nine. I don't see how that would be necessary if it is implicit that it is going to be looked at anyway. I don't know if we need to write it down. Just give some a little bit more specific guidance, but yeah. That's where my concern is. Thank you. Mr. Demovlin. Sure. Could you share with me, I think I know the answer, but I kind of want to hear it, what the occupancy that's allowed. Let's say it's a five-bedroom single-family residential home and the maximum occupancy that's allowed for an owner of that home or a long-term rental so for any single family dwelling unit or any well any dwelling unit any single dwelling unit the definition of family applies so our definition of family or housekeeping unit in the zoning ordinance is any number of related individuals or two unrelated individuals in any of their children or four unrelated individuals. And then again there are there's a process to go to the Board of Adjustment and ask for a conditional use for something called a functional family. If you have a group that wants to live together permanently in sort of a family-like setting but they're not related and they the only example I can think of is from several years ago before I came to the government of a group of nuns that were going to live together that exceeded for and they came and asked for a functional family because they were going to be living in a family-like setting and then that 8 allowance for folks who have a disability so there's not specifically a number for unrelated individuals is the and it's related I'm sorry if they're related if they're related it's any number any number related related yeah okay and then that this goes back to the Fair Housing Act largely because you can't discriminate based on familial status. And then is there anything that would prohibit an existing operator to, while they own it, to apply for the conditional use so that they could pass it on at sale? Can you repeat that? I'm sorry. Yeah, an existing owner, if it passed, an existing owner would would be able to continue their operation, but at the time they sold, it would, the right to run that would would go away and the new owner would have to go to the BOA? Yes. Is there anything that prohibits the existing owner to go to the BOA right now? No. So that they could pass it on once they sold it? Okay, thank you. Mr. Boll. You said that there are over a thousand STRs units citywide. Yes. Are there any figures on what percentage of those units have been have elicited complaints from the community so I would say that enforcement has been complaint driven and it's been really impossible for us to track these the 1000 number comes from a website called air DNA which I signed up for a free account for and it tracks VRBO and Airbnbs and it's largely a tool that's used by operators to sort of determine where they want to buy their next short-term rental so that they can kind of see what occupancy rates are and that sort of thing like I said previously we get complaints from neighbors from time to time hey there's a short-term rental going on near me and I don't like it we we tell them that you know they're they are legal as a dwelling unit that they're limited to 52 times and for unrelated individuals we historically have passed the information along we have sort of a guidance sheet that explains that interpretation that we pass along to the operators and I can't speak for building inspection for zoning enforcement too much but largely that's the end of it I think so we don't have a so those are not even always logged in as formal complaints once we tell them that they are legal as long as they're only doing it 52 times a year so we really just don't have a record of of what the complaints are. Thank you. Ms. Worth. This is going to be commentary first, maybe a question. I'll get to a question at the end. I agree with Mr. Nickel that that 1,000 feet sounds arbitrary, but I'm back to my concern about density. And I want to, I've been a neighborhood president. I've been on the neighborhood board for a number of years. It's been a while. I'm old and tired now but when I had energy I was a neighborhood board member and president and I want to say there's a difference between a neighborhood and a housing development in our goals and objectives for 2085 based in 45 they start forever again they we talk about building and maintaining successful neighborhoods and neighborhoods to me are not just a collection of equity generators they are They are places where people live and where they build ties and they build a sense of community and they check on each other. And so I'm caught between the gentleman that owns the two properties next to each other. I understand his concerns. I'm also concerned about the gentleman in Kenwood who talks about the number of short-term rentals in a very high-density area. And I'm not thinking about safety. I'm thinking about community. and that kind of density breaks down community. So where I'm headed to is not a 600-foot or whatever mini-foot and wondering if there might not be some way to think about density like speed limits. We don't let people drive cars and say, you adjust according to the circumstances on the road. We say, depending on where you are, you have to adjust your speed limit. and wondering whether there might not be some way to construct some sort of density figure that adjusts to the size of the parcels so that if we're in a highly compact area, we restrict it one way, a less compact area, so that there are some adjustments and flexibilities there that don't do damage to the neighborhood. That's all I've got to say. I think the shortest answer to that is the conditional use permit is how we do that. we look at each one on a case-by-case basis and try to make a determination on what's appropriate in that particular location. I've got a question about, again, about occupancy. The one gentleman mentioned having a very large home that the entire family meets at and all that sort of thing. would a conditional use permit allow him to request for more than eight? Is that how, that's how you would? I'll pull the language back up here. So Article 313C talks about the occupancy limit being two per bedroom plus four or a total of eight. But then the next section, Article 3-13D, says that the maximum occupancy limit for conditional uses shall be calculated in accordance with the above provision except that the board can allow additional occupants when there is sufficient evidence that a greater occupancy will not result in overcrowding or create a nuisance. So that gives the board the authority to increase that number. Okay. And then with the occupancy, was any thought given to the square footage of the property? You know, because, I mean, you can have four bedrooms in 1,400 square feet. Right, right. And you can also have it in 5,000 square feet. So was that considered at all in that number? I think the original number being based on bedrooms is really consistent with what other communities have done. It's hard to base something on square footage. Mikla. So, Autumn, we heard a number of comments, but a lot of them focused on two particular aspects. So, the first was, I think they're focused on the line, a change in ownership shall require a conditional use permit be approved by the Board of Adjustment. That is in Section I. Yes. And Section I and J, if I'm not mistaken, are unusual in the sense that usually when a ZODA comes through, we don't specifically address existing uses, and they sort of just move in as non-conforming uses. And then these sections were put in in order to expand the rights of short-term rental owners and give them a little more flexibility than they would have if they had to abide by the wall of the exact use that they currently are operating under. And so I guess if we're hearing concerns from those owners about that, taking those two sections out would actually limit them further, not actually help them? Is that what I understand? Yeah, that's correct. So if we were to remove item A, any short-term rental that is operating currently, that under the new ordinance would be considered a conditional use, they would either be limited to the four unrelated individuals 52 times a year, they could continue to operate in that way, or they would have to go to the Board of Adjustment and go through the public hearing process. So this provision allows them to skip the public hearing process if they're already in operation and gives them the bonus points of the new occupancy maximum and takes away the 52 rentals a year. But it ends with the sale of the property. Correct. Whereas a non-conforming use would normally continue as long as it's been used in that way. Would that still apply? Would they still be a non-conforming use if this paragraph is here? With this paragraph, they're sort of, they're kind of a hybrid. So without this paragraph, or if they chose not to take advantage of the additional flexibility that this allows and were to operate under the 52 times a year for unrelated individuals, that could move forward with a new owner. But if you're taking advantage of the additional flexibility, you're not truly a non-conforming use in the strictest sense. You're using this paragraph. So this paragraph says that your conditional use would go away with the sale. And then the other question sort of focused around the occupancy number. So I just want to wrap my head around that a little bit. If I understand it, we've added this sort of category of hosted and unhosted. And anything unhosted basically will have a custom occupancy set at the board of adjustment. So from a practical purpose, this cap applies only to hosted where there is a live-in host at the property. Right. Is that correct? Yes. So this sort of occupancy limit that we're adding is really only to a narrow number of properties? Is that? Right. I think the way that it's written, the board would likely start off with sort of an assumption that eight would be the maximum, but it does give them the ability to go above that with a finding that there is sufficient evidence that it would not create a nuisance or overcrowding issues. But yes, so essentially any short-term rental that's going to the board would have the ability to ask for more than eight. Okay, and then just, I understand that I guess there's a lot of restrictions that make these not very popular, but offhand, do you know, is there an occupancy that we have on bed and breakfast conditional use permits now? that are hosted with I think there's a number per bedroom yeah I think it's two per bedroom Tracy's gonna double check me Each room shall be run in to accommodate no more than two persons. Yes, no more than two persons per bedroom. One in two persons per bedroom. I mean, I guess my thought process here is I'm wondering, because you all have sort of done part of the work here where you're sort of defining that we have these properties sort of like Airbnbs in the past where there's an owner or resident who's hosting other people. They're on site. They're monitoring the property. They're sort of there managing it not via text message or phone call, but live in person. And I mean, just intuitively, it makes sense to... Since that's one of the concerns give that we heard from the council members about the occupancy is sort of possibly put that number the council originally had back, but in that sort of hosted and then the unhosted by default would go to Board of Adjustments anyway. I guess that's what I was trying to sort of tease out. Well, I guess what I was trying to tease out is the unhosted would always go to the Board of Adjustments to sort of set. So I guess we were asked by the council members and by a lot of the operators here about increasing it back to 12. and it seems like if we were to consider that, it seems like possibly a good place to consider that would be in that hosted category where a homeowner or a resident is on site. That sort of was my thought process. i i'd just like to hear you know i personally i'm i'm very respectful of the work that's been done by councilman sheehan and and brown and i if you've got a if councilman sheehan had a comment about the way that they understood that i'd like to hear that if that's the case because they for me they put in these 15 meetings and they've done a lot and personally i'm very respectful that that they've met with a lot of people and heard a lot and what their intention is. So there's your question, Mr. Bell, about the maximum number? Yes. What Rob was saying with regard to the host or non-host or those kinds of things. I think in all of the conversations, we were trying to find the middle ground between, like, what we actually see in operation. we did hear from a lot of operators that said that they don't actually like to have a large number of people in a place. So I don't know if I would speak to 8 or 12 or if you find something in the middle. I think I have to wear a bunch of different hats. So as someone who represents two neighborhoods that were mentioned today, I have residents in those neighborhoods that have concerns about any short-term rentals at all, right, in residential areas. But then I also know that some of the operators that are respectful in those neighborhoods have occupancies that are higher than eight. I also know that some of them are my residents. So trying to find a middle place here. As are we all. Yes. We're not allowed to. Thank you. Any other questions? Concerns? Yeah, I'll just say something maybe for staff. I'm just a little curious with a home, a five-bedroom home. two people in a room, 10 plus four, 14, and you know, that has a bunk room or pull out couches or something like that, the property could certainly handle it. And what are the objections to that? I think it really comes down to treating these differently than we treat long-term renters, who are limited, again, to that definition of family and for unrelated individuals, and increasing that beyond sort of the eight, which is already allowed sometimes for dwelling units, is really concerning to staff, that we're treating a sort of commercial use in a residential zone with a whole lot more flexibility than we're treating long-term renters. Okay, thank you. We have to make a recommendation. today. Okay, that's the on something. I can make one. Okay. I mean, do we want to have some comment before a motion or you want to? Well, I'm not opposed to making recommendations. Just a question though. Yeah, I want to bring it back to us. Didn't Tracy say we just had to start the hearing today? There's no problem with you all finishing the hearing today, except that you have to be out of the room by 5 o'clock. That's your constraint. If you didn't have that constraint, of course you could deliberate as long as you wanted to today. But if you are not able to make a decision, and you shouldn't feel rushed, if you're not able to make a decision, we have a provision for you all to pick this back up a week from today which will be the last time you can make a any consideration because then you'll be out of time this work session will recast the beginning of the work session as the continuation of this public hearing only if we can't get anything done only if you can't get your work done today so don't be discouraged if you're ready to act but don't feel rushed just because you only have 40 minutes left in this room. You didn't, but you didn't say who's kicking us out. Council is kicking us out, so that's out of our control. Okay, well, I'll bring it back. We're going to have more discussions or there aren't any further discussions. I've got a bit of a discussion. In a way that we could possibly handle this and act. the way that I am looking at this is that with this resolution we are defining the short-term rentals and the regulation looks like the regulation is that piece is pretty well addressed there's two areas where I would like to when it's appropriate make a motion and address two areas where I would like to make a change whether you know whichever way anyway I would like to make a change but the two areas where I'm interested in talking about I think we all are is section 313 on C now originally council said now we're going to the 8 to 12 we'll just use that language so council originally said 12 staff said 8 so I think that I would like to when it's appropriate to make a motion and that's what one of the things I would like to address in my motion the next is a personal issue which makes me a little uncomfortable is the G1 the number of SDRs within a thousand feet of a property and there's some concern with that about the uniqueness of tourist attractions and the fact that we are a community that is purposefully limiting our expansion because we want to save our horse farm so we really don't have that room to work so those the two areas where when it's appropriate I would like to make a motion with changes to those two areas. Whenever that's an opportunity, I would like to make that motion. Thank you. And if I may make a comment just on the agricultural side and the horse farm side, you know, because we are, because ag is what we're about, you know, we've got restrictions for some time. And today, I find ourselves attempting to be much more relevant to utilize this ag as a means of sharing with not only our community, but particularly outside our community. And I feel that these short-term rentals are providing an outstanding source to do that. And I think it's allowing us as a community to become much more relevant. We've got an extraordinary community here in Lexington. And it's obviously a balance of finding that balance. but listening to what Councilman Sheehan and Brown had to say I feel that they've done a lot of work in listening and gone going to those that are the responsible parties and I respect that so I'd be in favor personally of their suggestions um and that's my comment okay thank you mr bill mr poe in response to mr nichols suggestions i thought that the suggestion of limiting the count to eight but not including children made a lot of sense because much of the discussion of larger groups had to do with family gatherings so i'll just throw that out there for discussion if anyone else wants to chime in and with regard to item g number one the issue of 1 000 feet i would suggest language like this that would say that the Board of Adjustment shall take into consideration the proximity of other STRs, if any, to the property being considered for such use. That doesn't set any kind of a limitation on how far it is, but allows the Board of Adjustment to think about that issue and decide if it is worth weighing in their decision making. because you know as as some of the comments suggested in a place like parts of Kenwick a thousand feet is a lot in other places it's nothing and so I think it's better to leave that open and not list a distance but suggest that proximity is an issue that should be considered Mr. Poole, would some of that be covered in number three? I'm just asking for the SDR and the general vicinity. What you just said. That's the percentage. Oh, it's just a percentage, so you want to specify it. Okay. I just want to make sure I understand it, too. Go ahead. Well, I think that's the percentage. If I understand that right, that's the percentage of time of the year that they're occupied. Okay. I'm just looking for some hair shaking. I was looking for hair shaking. I don't see any hair shaking. No, any comment? If you don't want to, you don't have to. What I'm struggling with is the total number of bedrooms. I see it that I don't know what the right word is. Maybe it's unfair that a two-bedroom house has two people in each bedroom plus four is eight, so they fit in and everything's fine. And as you go up the larger the house, they can't be used in a similar way proportionally. So the small property, maybe that's the benefit ever. The reason with small properties getting to work and comply within this regulation, but as the property gets bigger, it's theoretically getting penalized. I know they're not hotels and things of that nature, but I don't know the answer. I'm just struggling with this concept of a larger home, four or five bedrooms. Even three would be too many if you do the two per bedroom plus four, you're at ten, so that wouldn't work. That's what I'm struggling with. Okay. Mr. Chair, can I say eight minutes of that? No, sir. May I comment? I don't want to get in between you and God, though. You know, I'm struggling because this isn't what we do. You know, we're hearing it kind of for the first time here today. And we've heard from many here that this is what they do. And they've been polishing this thing for a while before government came in and decided, you know, to regulate, which is fair enough. And it sounds as if, and again, listening to Councilman Sheehan and Brown, that they have worked together with these various parties to try to come up with something that is fair to those that are in the game. And I'm just respectful of that. I'm also respectful while Mary Quinn is here and she didn't speak, she did speak to me. And she said we will be at a significant economic disadvantage if we limit it to 8 versus 12. Because many people bring their families, as was expressed, and that's what she said to me. So I recognize that I don't know this, but I respect those that do. and that's what I based my judgment on. I was just going to say I'm hearing we're not quite there yet. I want to say again to the council members is a huge amount of work having spent a number of days on the goal for work group I have some sense of the kind of hours you've put into this and I'd like to suggest that we take the first few minutes of our work session and when we're not as tired we're a little fresher and wrap this up and see if we can come to agreement yes well what what you said resonated uh with me personally and i i kind of coming back to what what the what tracy said is in our airbnb what is in our bed and breakfast regulation now which is two people per bedroom and those have to be hosted based on what we heard i can go either way it's um as to whether we vote or not we've heard from concerns with people with large houses, it makes sense. We've heard from people with concerns about density, that makes sense. From what we already have a history of both locally and just culturally nationwide with the bed and breakfast, it makes sense to me to use that definition for our hosted properties of two people per bedroom. But then personally, I feel otherwise comfortable moving forward with the staff's recommended language. I really think it's a number of people for bathroom. Well, and you know, kind of going along with what Mr. DeMauflin said, coming from a large family, you know, when we do use an Airbnb, we're going there because we got a lot of people. And if we had, you know, a standard you know, two-person, four-people family, you know, that fits. But for the most part, and a lot of times it may be, you know, just the women in our family, for example. So, you know, some of them may be truly related. Some of them may be our play cousin or whatever you want to call it. But, you know, that's kind of what Airbnbs do for me is allow us to have everybody together under one roof. So it's hard for me to, I'm really struggling with the occupancy limits without any regard to the property which is being occupied. You know, because it just makes no sense. If I've got seven bedrooms, you know, that, you know, well, you know, for the way we do it, it might be 21 people. But, you know, I don't know. That's what I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around is how it feels a little arbitrary to put a number without a square footage or a number of bedrooms or some kind of, you know, some kind of something to, you know, balance it. You know, because right now it's just arbitrary. I could have a cracker box house and squeeze eight people in it legally, you know. But if I have 10,000 square feet, I can only have eight people trying to fill it up, you know. And that just, that's what I'm kind of struggling with. What I've heard is there's some of the operators, and most of them are not fully clear about the language that we have, too. That's what's concerning to me. I don't like kicking a can down the road either because some of y'all, even myself, may not be here Thursday next week. You're on vacation, see? I mean, that happens. But do we have time for the operators to get back in contact with staff to maybe discuss a few things? I don't have to repeat them, but there was a couple of items that these operators had issues with. I think that we would have some time. I think that we have generally heard probably what their concerns are. We do still have a little time today. I think that we could work with you all on alternative language, if that's something that you're interested in, for some of these things. If you wanted to take a quick recess, I suppose, I think we could probably, if you all are generally in agreement on something. Good. I think Mr. DeMovilland has. I got one question before we may take a recess. Would it be feasible to, on the unhosted, to allow the existing operators the two per bedroom plus four, not capped, and then all future ones would have to go in front of the BOA to get their number that they would see as appropriate? I think that that is, we could certainly write something to that effect. I think staff's concern with that was that the current regulations are for unrelated individuals, so these are already operating far in excess of what they should be technically. But if that's the Commission's desire to go that route, we can certainly write that language. Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out I'm concerned about existing operators and what they've been doing. I understand that perhaps it's been happening that's not in accordance with our ordinances. So we're going to take a five-minute recess and bring it back. So right now we're going to close this out and take a five-minute recess for bathroom break. But at 444, we're starting back. It's going to stay easy. You missed him all pluses. Really? You need him? That's sort of. That's a priority. Yeah, now they always do it. Thank you. Right, right. Thank you. so Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm out of it. Okay, we're going to open this meeting back up. It is 444. I'm on time. And we do have a motion. It's prepared by Mr. Nickel. I'm going to need some help with this. So I do have help. This is wonderful. It's Heedly. Okay. Okay. I would like to make a motion on PLN ZODA 22-18, the amendments to Article 5 and 7 regarding zone enforcement. I'm going to reference the staff alternative text except in section 313C where I would like to use the proposed text from Council. and then on 313-G, we would like to make an adjustment to the staff's alternative text, G1, from the number of STRs, if any, within 1,000 feet of the property being considered for such use to the number of STRs, if any, within proximity of the property being considered for such use. So once again, we would like to use a staff. I'm making a motion to approve the staff's alternative text, except use Council's text Section 313C and the revised text 313G1. Mr. Nichols, are you proposing to change the maximum number from 8 to 12? Yes, I am, using the Council's number. Okay. Do you want to do that in Section 313B as well? yes yes and the recommendation was yes to use the staff the council's text so the recommendation is for 12. we're still at 12. all right okay okay we have a motion and a second by mr bell any further discussion to that motion yeah just a clarification in 313b we're using the staff's recommended text except for the occupancy changing from 8 to 12 we're keeping the rest of the staff's recommended text yes yes okay that cleans it up all right now please vote via granicus to send this to council me too without seeing you're talking to know what i'm doing Well, mine's not working, so. It's not. Oh, I am now. I'm saying it to those of you in the audience. I'm saying this with reservation, and I hope that the council, as you move this forward will take into consideration the comments about density and see if you can figure out a better solution for this. But I think the importance of getting the structure and starting to collect the data and setting up mechanisms for dealing with issues is really important. And we can't ignore also, thank you, Judy, really what Councilman Sheehan and Brown said, that this is a start. And we can adjust, you know, so I respected that. Yeah, and they made a statement that they will be adjusted. This is a start. This is just kind of a platform to work off of. Okay. All right. And Mr. Duncan? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Great work this afternoon, you all. A reminder that we do have the Planning Commission work session next Thursday, May 18th. Planning Commission members, that meeting will be in this room. The Planning Commission work session will be in council chambers next week. It will not be televised, but we don't have access to our ordinary room. So we'll be in here. See you all next Thursday. Okay. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.