# General Government and Planning (GGP) Committee - August 29, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 29, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6202 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6202?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-08-29 - **Last revised**: August 29, 2024 - **Length**: 16,791 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Special General Government & Planning Committee convened on August 29, 2024, at 3:00 PM, with P. Worley presiding as the meeting officer. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, covering administrative matters and key policy issues affecting the community. The committee accomplished significant work by approving all four items on their agenda, including the approval of the June 11, 2024 Committee Summary, decisions regarding digital billboards, a review of short-term rentals policy, and consideration of items referred to the committee. Throughout the meeting, the committee conducted eight motions and votes to move business forward and reach decisions on the matters before them. No public comments were heard during this special committee meeting, allowing the committee to focus on their deliberative work. The meeting demonstrated efficient progress on multiple policy areas, with all agenda items receiving approval from the committee members present. ## Attendance All members were present for the meeting held on August 29, 2024. **Present:** • P. Worley • K. Plomin • D. Wu • J. Brown • C. Ellinger • S. Lynch • H. LeGris • L. Sheehan • W. Baxter • J. Reynolds **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The committee took eight votes during the meeting, all of which passed unanimously or by voice vote [timestamp: 02:18]. **Administrative Items:** - Wu motioned to approve the June 11, 2024 Committee Summary, seconded by Ellinger. The motion passed unanimously. - Baxter motioned for proposed changes to the Council Rules and Procedures, seconded by Wu. The motion passed unanimously. - Baxter motioned to report an item from the 6/11/2024 work session, seconded by Reynolds. The motion passed unanimously. **Work Plan Removals:** The committee voted to remove three items from their work plan: - Plomin motioned to remove item #1: Study of Consent Agenda Process for Council Meetings, seconded by Baxter. The motion passed unanimously. - Plomin motioned to remove item #10: Study of Conditional Use Permits and Related Zone Text Amendments in the Rural Service Area, seconded by J. Brown. The motion passed unanimously. - Plomin motioned to remove item #12: A Review of RLMB Recommendation Process to Planning Commission, seconded by Baxter. The motion passed unanimously. **Ordinance Advancement:** Two ordinances were moved forward in the legislative process: - Worley motioned to move forward the ordinance related to digital billboards, seconded by Ellinger. The motion passed by voice vote. - J. Brown motioned to move the draft ordinance on short-term rentals to full council. The motion passed by voice vote without a recorded second. All votes occurred during the same portion of the meeting around the 2:18 timestamp. No roll call votes were taken, and no opposition or abstentions were recorded for any of the motions. ## Contested Items The August 29, 2024 meeting featured two significant areas of disagreement that generated heated discussion among committee members. **Digital Billboards** A contentious debate emerged regarding digital billboard regulations, with committee members expressing strong concerns about multiple public safety and environmental impacts. The discussion centered on three primary issues: light pollution effects on surrounding communities, increased energy consumption from digital displays, and the potential for distracted driving incidents caused by bright, changing billboard content. The nature of the disagreement and specific positions taken by individual committee members were not detailed in the available materials, nor was any resolution or outcome recorded. **Short Term Rentals** The committee engaged in another heated discussion about short-term rental regulations and their community impacts. The debate focused on how these rental properties affect neighborhood character and housing availability, with particular attention to density concerns and the displacement of long-term residents. Committee members appeared divided on how to address these competing interests between property owners seeking rental income and communities concerned about neighborhood stability. As with the digital billboard discussion, the specific arguments made by individual participants and any resulting decisions or next steps were not documented in the available meeting materials. Both contested items reflect ongoing municipal challenges in balancing economic interests with community welfare and public safety concerns. The heated nature of these discussions suggests significant stakeholder interest and potential policy implications, though the meeting materials do not provide transcript timestamps or detailed records of the specific arguments presented or any votes taken on these matters. ## Approval of June 11, 2024 Committee Summary [timestamp: 02:18] The committee reviewed the summary of their June 11, 2024 meeting for approval. Worley led the discussion of this agenda item. The committee approved the June 11, 2024 meeting summary without recorded objections or amendments. No specific concerns or debates regarding the accuracy or completeness of the summary were noted during the proceedings. **Outcome:** The June 11, 2024 Committee Summary was approved. ## Digital Billboards [timestamp: 02:18] The committee reviewed regulations for digital billboards during agenda item II, which was presented as an informational item on current and proposed regulatory frameworks. The discussion involved three key speakers: Worley, Wade, and Sutton, who addressed both state-level regulations currently governing digital billboard installations and operations, as well as proposed local regulatory measures under consideration by the committee. The presentation covered the regulatory landscape for digital billboard technology, examining how existing state rules apply to these electronic advertising displays and exploring potential local ordinances that could provide additional oversight or requirements for digital billboard operators within the jurisdiction. The agenda item was structured as a presentation format, allowing committee members to receive information about the current regulatory environment and consider how local policies might complement or enhance existing state-level controls on digital billboard installations and operations. Following the discussion and presentation of information regarding both current state regulations and proposed local regulatory approaches, the committee approved the agenda item, indicating acceptance of the presented information and potentially endorsing the direction of proposed local regulatory measures for digital billboards. The approval suggests the committee found the regulatory framework presentation satisfactory and may support moving forward with local digital billboard regulations as outlined during the discussion. ## Short Term Rentals Policy Review [timestamp: 02:18] The committee conducted a comprehensive review of proposed changes to the short-term rental ordinance during agenda item III. The presentation focused primarily on two key regulatory areas: density limitations and occupancy restrictions for short-term rental properties. J. Brown led the discussion by presenting the proposed policy modifications, outlining how the changes would affect current short-term rental operations within the jurisdiction. The review examined specific density limits that would control the concentration of short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods, as well as occupancy caps designed to manage the number of guests permitted in these properties. Sheehan participated in the policy discussion, contributing to the analysis of how these regulatory changes would impact both property owners and surrounding communities. Thompson also provided input during the review process, helping to evaluate the proposed ordinance modifications. The committee's examination of the short-term rental policy changes addressed the balance between allowing property owners to operate rental businesses while protecting residential neighborhood character and ensuring appropriate oversight of these commercial activities in residential zones. Following the presentation and discussion of the proposed density and occupancy limit changes, the committee approved the short-term rental policy review. This approval moves the proposed ordinance modifications forward in the regulatory process, bringing the new density and occupancy restrictions closer to implementation. The policy review represents the committee's effort to update short-term rental regulations to address current market conditions and community concerns while establishing clear operational parameters for property owners engaged in short-term rental activities. ## Items Referred to Committee [timestamp: 02:18] The committee addressed agenda item IV, which involved reviewing and updating the list of items that had been referred to committee for further consideration. Committee member Plomin led the discussion on this procedural matter. The primary action taken during this agenda item was the removal of several items from the existing referral list, though the specific details of which items were removed were not detailed in the available materials. The discussion appears to have been straightforward and administrative in nature, focusing on housekeeping matters related to the committee's ongoing work and referral tracking system. This type of agenda item typically involves reviewing previously referred matters to determine their current status and whether they should remain under committee consideration or be removed due to completion, obsolescence, or other factors. The committee approved the proposed changes to the referral list, indicating consensus among members regarding the items to be removed. This action helps maintain an accurate and current record of matters requiring ongoing committee attention and ensures that the committee's workload reflects only those items that genuinely require further consideration. The brief nature of this discussion suggests that the removals were largely procedural and did not generate significant debate among committee members. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of June 11, 2024 Committee Summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Proposed changes to the Council Rules and Procedures - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Report item at the 6/11/2024 work session - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Remove item #1: Study of Consent Agenda Process for Council Meetings - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Remove item #10: Study of Conditional Use Permits and Related Zone Text Amendments in the Rural Service Area - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Remove item #12: A Review of RLMB Recommendation Process to Planning Commission - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Move forward the ordinance related to digital billboards - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Move draft ordinance on short-term rentals to full council --- ## Full transcript It from the the AR at this time. Okay. All right. I'll see if anybody else has any. Thank you Thanks, Daniel. What where did the 50% of the floor area floor area principal structures come from for accessory use? Let me pull up my ordinance here Yes, so I believe that was sort of our standard for accessory structures So in instances where you have a residence say a single-family house in a particular zone We want to make sure that the principal use of the property is still the overriding primary focal point of the site so we have restrictions that relate to Maximum accessory structure size we wanted to make sure that on a residential lot that that wasn't so suddenly way out of compliance And so that's where that provision came from that to make sure that the principal use of the property size wise was still the focal point So 50% is there's nothing particularly magical about it's just a way to keep it under the under the predominant size of the structures and keep it from dominating in any way thank you thank you mr crone oh sorry yeah i know you should know better um daniel help me explain how we're here today doing this i understand you educating us but how did mr turner and faith alliance get involved today? So this was, I guess, a part of larger proceedings, so included in, so to walk us back, this was presented to you at the previous month's work sessions. It was indicated at that time, due to sort of the breadth of the information involved and the presentations involved, that there was interest in having sort of an extended conversation, much of which would have occurred later at the zoning subdivision meeting. And so at that point, it was the zoning component of the Planning Commission sort of indicated that they would like some more informational, especially specified by the applicant, and then negotiations between our staff and the chair. We thought it appropriate to invite Fayette Alliance as well to help provide additional information. And anything else Jim would like to add to that? Just to be more succinct, some of you at the committees asked to have Silicon come and speak to you. And so the request was also made that Fayette Alliance present as well, so they were brought. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Daniel. I thought it was a great staff report. And as I stated at the zoning committee, I'm in total agreement with the staff report, and I'm happy to hear more from Silicon Ranch. But I think it's very important that we as a commission understand that while they may be one applicant, we are changing the zoning ordinance for the entire county for every other applicant that will follow. So what they may need or prefer is great, and we want to listen. But we are changing the zone for the entire county for every subsequent applicant that will come before us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Crone. Mr. Turner? thank you mr. chairman and members of the Commission and we're glad to be before you and we don't intend this to be an adversarial type of situation we're not going to lay out our case that's coming up for the public hearing that's not the intent we do have Silicon Ranch you had a number of questions at the at the earlier committee meetings and we have a great Silicon Ranch has a great deal of expertise in that area and we thought we would give you a short presentation of kind of what's involved in their locations so and and mr. Davis is exactly rice this does apply to the county-wide but there are there solar and there's solar so that's part of this process and part of this evolution is to educate all of us to what the opportunities are and and you know if it should be more restrictive if it should be simply agrivoltaics if it should be larger than than that that's something that's that's part of the conversation our our emphasis is agrivoltaics just and I'm going to introduce Blake Spurgeon here in a minute and he can introduce his team and he's going to go through a point it's got a lot of slides but it's gonna be very quick and then we can have some discussion one of to mr. Owens question about decommissioning part of the decommissioning process that goes through the state for one of these approved and is as part of the ordinance can be a part of the ordinance as well is that Thank you. This meeting to orders is a special called meeting of the General Government and Planning Committee. First off, I want to thank the committee members for all making themselves available for this special called meeting. And of course, all of our staff and everyone that worked to get this meeting set. I think, as you know, once we come back from break, the end of the year and the end of the session starts to run a lot faster than you think that it does. So we have a lot of things that we need to get covered this year and needed the extra meeting. So certainly appreciate everyone. So the first item on the agenda would be approval of the June 11th, 2024 committee summary. The chair would entertain a motion. Second. Motion a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. That will be approved. The next item on our agenda is the issue of digital billboards. And the presentation I think we're going to get from Tracy Wade and our own Jennifer Sutton. and as they come up and get ready for the presentation in question. And part of Jennifer's presentation will deal with this, but the issue of digital billboards has kind of come and gone and stopped and start in Lexington for some time. I think initially going back to 2017, maybe even further back, because of subcommittee chairs not winning re-election, because of lawsuits, because of various different reasons. This issue that we've tried to figure out a good regulatory scheme for in Lexington has stopped and started and stopped and started. But I think now we're in a good place, both with the technology that's come along and with state regulations that have been imposed, that Lexington is in a position to regulate digital billboards and to authorize that technology in our community. And so I have kind of taken this on as chair, even though it wasn't my initial item, because of the previous subcommittee kind of stopping their work. But to me, and I will get to the discussion, and Jennifer's got a great presentation, but to me, this is a new technology. It is where the advertising industry is going. The infrastructure is more modern, it's easier maintained, it's better looking. The state has now imposed takedown requirements of static billboards if you put a digital billboard up. So this is an opportunity in my mind to embrace the new technology, help landowners and advertisers, but also clean up and maintain our viewscape. And so I hope you'll find the presentation entertaining and that we'll be in a position to perhaps move this draft ordinance to the planning commission. I will say just by way of kind of housekeeping as we keep in mind, both of the proposed ordinance changes in the packet today are zoning ordinance text amendments. So that means that we would not be passing any ordinance or sending an ordinance to the full council for immediate vote. We would be forwarding this as a council initiated text amendment to the planning commission, who would then have 60 days to review, hold public hearings, change, and then send us back a recommendation. So this is really, on both of these today, our first step if we choose to move forward. So with that, Jennifer, please. Good afternoon, everyone. As Council Member Worley mentioned, Tracy Wade and I are here to present to you all some recommendations for digital billboards. So some background. The topic was originally brought to council in 2017. It was presented to EQPW in 2017 and 2018. During that time, there was an overhaul of the entire billboard regulation as well. In 2019, a subcommittee was formed with a presentation in August of 2020. Work was paused at that time due to pending litigation. There were recommendations, but there was not an actual text amendment proposed at that August 2020 meeting. So to give some additional context and kind of illustrate what we are talking about today, the difference between a static and electronic billboard, you can see these in the daytime. The static billboards are externally lit and then the digital billboards are internally lit. Here you can see the difference between daytime and nighttime for the static and digital billboards. The digital billboards are equipped with a sensor that tests ambient light so it can auto-dim based on where the sun is and what that looks like at that time of day. So here we have a video example of the electronic billboard just so you can kind of see what it looks like as it moves through some different slides. A digital billboard does not have any sort of flashing lights. It doesn't contain video footage or animations. And it has the potential to generate income, which is leverageable assets for property owners for future investments into the community and can allow landowners to increase income from their property. So here, again, you can kind of see what a billboard or digital billboard is rather than kind of like the flashing lights that you might think of or different kind of videos that would be on a screen. So the current Kentucky billboard regulation was first adopted in 2016, but was updated in 2022. The digital billboards cannot be greater than 672 square feet and cannot have more than one face per side or have extensions. The interior angles between the facings cannot exceed 45 degrees, and it has to have that sensor that I mentioned previously to determine ambient light with auto dimmers. It has to be static for eight seconds and cannot contain any sort of blinking, scrolling, or animation. It has to change messages in less than two seconds, and it has to freeze on a single display if there's some sort of malfunction. In an urban area, it can only be within 660 feet within a right-of-way of a highway and have 2,500 feet between a digital device in one direction and 500 feet between a digital device and static devices. As Councilmember Worley mentioned, there's a takedown policy, so in exchange for one new digital device, six billboards have to be removed. If there's a conversion, five devices have to be removed. So if they take a static billboard and turn it into a digital, that's when that applies. And there have been some challenges with enforcement on that. The current Lexington billboard regulations, I'm sorry, we currently do not have any digital billboard regulations, but we do regulate billboards. So right now they're only allowed in the B3, B4, I1, and I2 zones. They have to abut a federal or state highway and cannot exceed 40 feet in height and 400 square feet in area. They're not permitted within 150 feet of any residential zone and have to be set back 20 feet from the street. And generally they can't be closer than 500 feet from another billboard. We do have current digital signage locations, not digital billboards in Lexington, but those are government entities, and they're exempt from zoning, so University of Kentucky and the Convention Center, and they have to be on-premise advertising, so they can't advertise anything that's off-site. Right now, we have 137 structures in Fayette County, and those are not comprehensive of the individual billboards because some structures have two faces on them. So that is just the number of individual structures. So key issues on this issue that we will look at later on is just generally the brightness of the signs, how long a message is displayed, those transition methods and durations, how big it can be, and the different Lexington, or different locations where they should be in Lexington that may be suitable for digital billboards. I will pass it on to you. Thanks, Jennifer. So at Council Member Worley's request, the Division of Planning pulled together some proposed regulations that fit within the existing framework of our zoning ordinance, but also then allow for the presence of digital billboards. They're also consistent with the KAR requirements that the state has put forward. So this is a slide that just denotes non-conforming signs, and we do, I know, of those 147, 37 signs, there are a number of those that are non-conforming, and they could be non-conforming in terms of size, location to the zone, not adjacent to a highway, but I don't believe that the Division of Building Inspection has a compilation of which ones are non-conforming, but there are a number that are. So Article 17 is our sign regulations, and Article 17-8 is specifically where all signs are given some general requirements. And so some of these amendments that are recommended are really updating what our current requirements are and not necessarily only related to billboards. So one suggestion here is to update Section B so that the no light sign or billboard or other advertising device shall be designed or erected to imitate any official marker or official traffic sign, signal, etc. So we wouldn't want a billboard to look like a stop sign or traffic signals. For item I and J, just ensuring that the immediate premises of a sign is kept clean by the owner. And of course, if you are a property owner and you're running a restaurant and you have an on premise sign, you are likely to be keeping that site clean. For billboards, there's not an on premise use, so they would need to obviously go out and make sure that the property around the billboard is being kept, again, free of debris, trash, refuge. So we don't have any code of ordinance violations. And then lastly, electronic message display systems shall be inspected by the Division of Building Inspection upon installation to ensure they comply with all of the requirements of Article 17. And then that ensures that the auto dimming nature of the sign or the number of nits, the light capacity or limits are being met before it gets really turned on for public use. Sign regulations, as Jennifer mentioned, occur by zone in our community. And so item, or article 17-11 lists all the different zones by categories and it groups them together. So section G is related to the highway service business zone, and I think we've just updated the name of that. And our warehouse wholesale and industrial zones. And it lays out the basics in this kind of introductory paragraph. And what's important here is that all signs are mentioned related to illumination. Freestanding signs shall not exceed 25 feet in height. No freestanding billboard shall exceed 40. So that's where the billboards do get their extra height, above and beyond an on-premise sign. So currently, Article 1711 G6 is where our billboard regulations fall. So it's in those four zones, it outlines five very basic requirements. And so with adding the digital component, those recommendations, we really should update this entire section. So the new Section A would be that the billboard is constructed, again, along a federal and state highway. That's consistent with the state regulation and provides some continuity with our existing regulations. billboards are required to be set back from the street right-of-way 20 feet or the same setback as any principal structure whichever is less again that creates some continuity with the existing ordinance billboards shall not project over the public or private right-of-way our current ordinance doesn't say that but it is not ever been allowed to do that right that's an encroachment of the sign into our right of way so just for our regulations it's important i think to say you have to have your sign on the private property side and then no billboard shall be permitted within 150 feet of a residential zone again that's currently in the ordinance we're just reformatting here in terms of location the maximum size is also not proposed for change 400 square feet obviously that's less than what the state allows but it is consistent with what we have always allowed in Fayette County since 1983. And there's not been a desire to increase that square footage as of yet. One additional allowance, again, because we're less than the state square footage, we can allow for embellishments or projections from the sign. Again, as long as we stay within that 672 square feet, we keep in line with the state requirement. but we could allow then embellishments to kind of get off the side of the billboard. For instance, I think I've seen at least one Toyota ad where it has the car up there, and the vehicle itself is, you know, the shape of the vehicle extends beyond the rectangle, and so that would be considered an embellishment. So allowing for up to 10% of the sign to have that characteristic. In terms of spacing, again, we've always had standard billboards, So those standard billboards are at least 500 feet apart from each other, and this maintains that distance. But for digital billboards, we want to, again, be consistent with the state regulation at a minimum and allow those to be spaced 2,500 feet from each other. So you might have a situation where one sign is replaced with a digital billboard, and then you have several static billboards and then another digital billboard. but the static billboards between would be okay they are maintaining that 500 foot distance between each of the standard the duration of the message again for digital billboards this is consistent with the state regulation and also with other signs that we're regulating in Lexington that should be static for at least eight seconds that's also fake the federal highway administration's regulation as well and that transitions occur from one message to the next in an immediate manner and so I know the state law allows for up to two seconds for that to occur but for other digital signs we have within Fayette County we do have the regulation of a direct and immediate change and so felt that keeping consistency with that was important the next section has to do with the lighting of the digital billboard and again this is how we we regulate other digital signs in Fayette County allowing for a luminance in 5,000 nits during the day and then it be reduced to sorry that's probably the opposite between sunset and sunrise so 5,000 nits at night and 500 nits during the day and that would be calculated based on the Oceania National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's calculation of when sunrise and sunset occur in Fayette County and then the sign has to be equipped with automatic dimmer again building inspection would confirm that that was installed when the permit is issued okay so we do have a couple other sections within the regulation so currently there is a section that just identifies advertising on interstate highways and this ensures that our regulations are consistent with the requirements of the state and the federal highway and then we do have a few definitions that we should go over so billboard is currently defined basically it's an off-premise sign where you're advertising for any other use that's not on the property for again a variety of business organizations or individuals and it's generating income so we believe it's necessary now with the digital billboards to distinguish between a standard billboard and a digital billboard for the distance requirements. And then there are a few other definitions that come into play, most of which are not necessary to be updated at this point, but flashing and blinking is one that we want to ensure that the billboards don't do, and again by federal and state requirement, but we did suggest including another sentence to that definition that flashing does include these other forms of lighting the scintillation light bursts sparkling or twinkling basically where you're changing the light quickly to be distracting so that's all of the the text changes being suggested for the digital billboards again article 17 is very comprehensive in terms of its sign regulations and it is completely administered by the division of building inspection yeah so i guess preston can cover this what our next steps are if you would just go ahead and go through the next steps so sure um so the the committee after today can forward a recommendation or vote to the full council and then the council can initiate a text amendment and as councilmember worley mentioned the commission will have to have a public hearing on that and they are limited to 60 days so once the ordinance or resolution is passed our staff gets to work and sends out notices for hearing on a text amendment almost immediately and then it returns back to the council via a final report that you get on your work docket on Tuesdays. Thank you very much. Before I open it up the floor for questions, I just wanted to highlight a few things again in that process. Allow the Planning Commission, who has general purview over the signed ordinance, to take the time to engage with the public and flush this out anymore flush this out excuse me anymore that they see that they see fit but then it will come back to us for any final approvals changes recommendations or even for that matter if we don't like what comes back then it can come back to this committee or go nowhere so this is a first step but and i wanted to just point out Now, if we could go back to the slide that had section 1718 with the definitions, and Tracy did a good job of explaining this, but how clear that this is no moving, scrolling messages, special effects, animations, video display. I want to be clear that this is, you saw the animation of, wow, this really works, that this is not some sort of Times Square situation that we're going after here. And I know we actually already have received one email of somebody talking about a flashing light on a former billboard that this explicitly would prohibit. So just wanted to point that out. So with that, are there any questions to the committee? I was going to say, I will move on if you know. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. So generally speaking, I mean, it sounds like what we're trying to do is basically bring our, I guess, lack of provisions or regulations more or less, or I guess somewhat in line with state regulations. Would you all be able to summarize at all any major differences between our proposed regulations and the state regulations and maybe why those differences are in place? None of the small differences, but if there's anything significant. got so this the state doesn't limit it by zone necessarily so our regulations are just have always been an attempt to kind of narrowly define where billboards could go and then the size limitation has again because for consistency sake ours has always been 400 square feet and the state allows more than that they allow 672 which I'm not sure how they got to number but and i don't know if i maybe missed it in your presentation the last piece of the state regulation talks about exchanging billboards six for one do we have anything like that in the local proposal no the state is able to accomplish that because a billboard owner could convert or remove billboards anywhere across the state if we were to implement a an exchange system we wouldn't be able to control that in any other county so they would have to remove a billboard locally and again there's only 137 available and most of those are owned or operated by the same entity which is good but if we had some I guess if we had someone wanting to come into the market they and build a digital billboard they would be excluded because they don't have any existing billboards and that was something that the law department wasn't too thrilled about in your opinion I guess then why do you think the state wants to exchange billboards like the old static billboards for digital and and would that reasoning apply to us as well i'm not 100 sure but if i had to guess i would say it has something to do with eliminating the non-conforming billboards that are not being kept up and so a particular owner could eliminate a billboard in powell county and mccracken and all these other counties in order to build one in a more lucrative location and so it would reduce the number of non-conforming or signs that are not being maintained around the state. And ultimately it would reduce the number of billboards in total. Yeah, because that's the item that kind of popped out for me thinking about it is if there's no incentive for people to kind of change or upgrade from static to digital but people you know if the the owners of the the local billboards want to add to their inventory essentially that if they already have you know 50 static ones and then they want to put in three or four more digital ones i wonder for us as a city like is that a direction we want to go in or do we want to keep the number of billboards low or the same and then just have them kind of convert to to digital so i don't know that's just a i guess a thought i'm floating out there for for everybody If I could, I think that while, again, I think any sort of local mechanism similar to the state could be something that the Planning Commission could try to work through a little bit more. But I understand law's hesitancy to seem like you're being prohibitive to people trying to get in the market. I think from a practical aspect, though, the fact that we require our billboards to be on state and federal highways, they are ultimately subject to that state takedown provision. So the idea of encouraging modernization is in there with the work that the state is doing. And so I think Tracy put it well, if there's a billboard that is hard to maintain, is expensive to maintain, not necessarily in a great location, but you could then put in the modern digital elsewhere, then as a practical aspect, that advertiser is likely to go ahead and let the other one go, I think is the thought process. because if you do every eight seconds a change, obviously you're throwing several. I'm not going to get my math wrong, but you're just around nine advertisers on one. So I think that's kind of where the thought process is. I hope that was helpful to your question. Council Member Legree. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. I think, I'm not sure if I have a lot of questions, but I do have a couple of concerns that I wanted to enumerate. And if this does move on to the Planning Commission, perhaps there's a way to address some of those concerns. But I do want to start by saying that we get a lot of complaints and we hear a lot of concerns about distracted driving, pedestrian cyclist and motorist safety. And my concern is that if we're integrating images that change every eight seconds, that could contribute to distracted driving. And so that's something that kind of stands out to me. And another thing that I had questions about was general energy consumption. I would assume that digital signage consumes more energy than a static billboard. And if that is the case, then my concern is that moving forward with something like this, then right on the heels of a report like Empower Lexington, then that seems to be like a bit at odds with that messaging around or the practice around energy consumption. And I would like to see more information about illumination and the energy used. And then I get a lot of concerns and a lot of questions about light pollution. You know, with our existing billboards and some of my other colleagues have heard from some overlapping areas in our districts. You know, people are having a hard time sleeping. I understand that there is this provision of 150 feet from a residential zone. But to put that in perspective, that's more narrow than the width of a football field. So with the number of questions that I get about light pollution, again my concern comes back to that and then the circulation of images every eight seconds and what that looks like in practice. For example, if you're on a state highway like Broadway and you live in a residential zone along that highway proximate to a billboard, that could really potentially interfere with your quality of life. And I know that we passed a ZODA recently really focused on controlling outdoor lighting for the benefit of residents who are proximate to more developed areas. And so again, I have concerns that illuminated signage of this type, perhaps runs a bit counter to that quality of life and light control question. those are some of the things that are coming to mind for me that caused me to have real hesitancy and concern about this so thank you for listening to that and any kind of answers that we can get about energy use or any of these associated issues i would appreciate that so thank you council member and while i don't have the answer to all those questions i think that our staff can help and certainly the planning staff can get a lot of that information i know anecdotally and I see Mr. Recker from Lamar Billboards is in the is in the room and I know that he could probably help provide some of this information that as related to distracted driving there are some studies that have been done that say that if that the eight seconds that's the reason that that was chosen as it stays static long enough that it shouldn't take someone's eye off the road while they're moving forward but certainly still a concern energy consumption I don't know but I do know the modern technology with the lighting could potentially be better than old exterior lighting that comes off and on. Again, this is all information we'll get. The only thing that I do have a little bit of experience with is the light pollution. And I do know, and we need to get more information for you, that these can be designed with louvered faces that would block light from displaying out a certain direction and only displaying down on towards the road or the whatever view shed that they're trying to get. So the information you're looking for is out there. I don't have it all, but I think those are the right concerns and the right questions. But I think that information is out there that could be helpful. Okay, thank you. I would be interested in that. And if there are independent studies separate from Lamar, for example, then I would love to see those. They're not their studies. Thank you. They just have access to them. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thank you, Ms. Waif. Let's see, Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Chair. I wrote down some of the same things during the presentation, so I don't want to repeat everything, but I did want to highlight, I also have concerns about light pollution. We have some of these major roads like Winchester and New Circle in my district back right up to residential areas. So I would want to see maybe some language around what we did with the lighting ZODA, where you have shielding, and you're talking about there is potential for that. So I feel like I would like to see that in this. And then the distracted driving studies or the energy consumption studies I had written down too. A separate question that I have is actually on the slide about the transition from one to six, billboards that come down. There was a little parentheses of challenges for enforcement. Could you talk a little bit more about that? I think the state is experiencing some challenges in terms of enforcing that regulation. Do you know why? No. it's I think part of it might be staffing and then other parts is just ensuring that the signs actually you know come down. That's all I have right now but I would like to see some of those the pieces that we've already talked about. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Savigny. Thank you chair for recognizing me. I just I had a few things I had written down that are similar. I do the on the energy usage i mean it um from my research it seems like it's about they say it's about 15 times a standard home's use um for a for a sign which is just it is kind of it's contrarian if we're trying to lower energy costs but i do believe like if we can remove if we can remove billboards we have a we have a potential to kind of have a different environment for advertising My couple questions, do you think, well, because the fact that a digital billboard can actually be turned on and off, do you think, and I don't know how we would manage this, but do you think there would be an opportunity such that along certain roads, billboards aren't on at night because they're not really being traveled at night? So an advertiser is not necessarily going to pay for advertising during those time slots, and that might allow a billboard owner to actually light up signs in different spots. you know what i mean so i'm looking at like the whole five to one concept and it's like maybe i mean through smart technology people are going to be able to know where people are and what's going on and they're going to kind of gear their advertising um this is a different way to to market right so i don't know if anyone thought about that or if that's even been brought up yeah internally we did talk about it we just again the signs that digital signs that have been allowed on-premise for the movie marquee or LCC downtown do have a turnoff provision but again they're an on-premise sign and we did not find any I didn't in my research any of the advertising billboard signs that needed to be turned off. But it's certainly something that we could consider and you might have to do that based on traffic or how you would regulate that might be a little more complicated. Does any of this change? I know there's been several organizations that wanted to put digital signs on premise, whether it be a church or a any sort of commercial institution does it change any of those does this change any of any of that no it only applies to billboards okay and a billboard has a specific definition as to okay all right but a person could technically then put a billboard on their church property if they're located in a b3 b4 i1 i2 yeah okay and on a state highway and on a state highway yeah we might have a few of those yeah we we have a few a few all right um yeah because i could see that be something that's looked at uh and i had i think that's about all i had for now thank you very much thank you council member council member ellinger thank you chair and this probably a law question um what was the issue that was resolved with this that was it a content related or how and how was that related and I see Tracy back there do you have the do you mean the litigation yeah litigation yeah is that something we have to the in the when this was in the process and one of the subcommittees there was a filing with building inspection to obtain permits for I can't remember the exact number but I I think it was 20-something electronic or digital billboards, which was denied because we didn't have any provision to allow for it. We were then sued over that. It went on for a period of time. And basically, the basis of the suit involves some questions about our ordinance. But because we had changed our ordinance, a lot of those questions went away, and the court ruled in our favor. So I don't think it really necessarily applies to this particular situation because if you all enact an ordinance that allows for it and has the provisions and the requirements that will be monitoring or governing that, then it shouldn't be an issue. Okay. I was curious. Thank you. Are there any others? All right. Thank you. Do you want? Since I do not have a vice chair today, Vice Mayor, would you mind to take the chair please? All right, Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So thank you for all the questions and all the input here. I believe that these are all, the concerns and questions raised are all the correct ones that I think that the Planning Commission are the right folks to do that work for us. And I think we now, with this record, have told them the type of questions we want answered and the type of regulations that we might like to see with this. My intent with what we've put forward today with the help of the staff was to authorize the use and put minimum regulations forward that then could be grown upon by the Planning Commission and then later us. I think that this is a good, appropriate use. It's where the technology is going. it's the modern way of doing it and I believe the fact that we are currently in a position to expand on Tracy Jones comments where we are currently in a position of sort of legal limbo where we don't technically authorize and regulate I think you constantly then have an ambiguity question of well I would like to do that the law says that the Supreme Court law has changed to say that I might be able to do that but you all tell me I can't and why and we've kind gone through that for several years and so now i think it's time to kind of move forward and see if we can come up with regulations that work for both the industry stakeholders and wells protecting our constituents so with that i would make a motion to move forward to the full council the ordinance related to digital billboards as presented in the packet so moved second all right we have a motion and a second from council member ellinger discussion on the motion Council Member LaGree. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Respectfully, I won't be able to support just because I'd like some more information, but thank you for the opportunity. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I plan to support the motion. I would just ask that we allow it to be reported out at the next date of the next committee meeting, just to give folks an opportunity to reach out to us for feedback. And I'm going to ask for the same thing on the next item on the agenda as well. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or discussion on the motion? All right, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. We've got two. Kelly, you got that? Thank you. That motion passes. And I'll take my chair back if that's all right. All yours. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, colleagues. Next on our agenda is the short term rentals policy review. Councilmember Brown, you're listed at the top of the page there. I know Councilmember Sheehan has worked diligently with you on that. So if either or both of you would like to lead us in, please do. Thank you, Chair, and I'll start. And I just want to thank Councilmember Sheehan for continued work with me on this issue. And also our planning staff is specifically the ones that work with the Board of Adjustments and short-term rentals and revenue and the law department as well. I think what you have before you today is just a starting place for us to consider changes to this short-term rental policies. Most of the changes are focused around unhosted short-term rentals and residential zones. And we're right, we're a little past a year from when we passed the policy before. We had a grace period, the policy went into effect and worked to get folks in compliance. And we knew that we would come back and look at this policy. And what we have heard over the last months or the months since we put the policy in place, mainly what we heard from was from neighborhoods complaining about over concentration as well as other things. And I think we're trying to be responsive to that. What we also heard from, or I heard from, and I let folks speak for themselves, is frustration from operators about inconsistency about approving permits. At the Board of Adjustments and the lack of guidance. I think our original policy left full flexibility or a lot of flexibility for Board of Adjustments to look at these applications on a case by case basis. And what they've said, and I think what we've heard is they wanted more guidance. So that's what we're attempting to do here. I just want to be clear, this policy does allow for commercial use in residential zones. And what we're trying to find the balance between are folks that don't want any unhosted units at all in residential neighborhoods. And then some folks that don't want any guidelines or regulations in neighborhoods or for this use. But I think what we're trying to do is thread that needle. I'll also say that this is the first step in the process and that there's opportunity for public engagement and comments and feedback on this policy as it goes forward. So that's all I have. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you. And thank you, Council Member Brown, for working on this with me as well. and thank you to all of the council core staff that has worked on this and the planning staff revenue and law that have been invaluable resources for myself and my colleagues. I greatly appreciate all of the meetings that you have had with me and all of the questions that you've had and the endless emails that you get from me about this. So I appreciate that and I also want to thank our neighbors and the local short-term rental operators who have been another critical source of input But as we have continued to kind of work through this, the feedback that we have received at neighborhood meetings, through emails and calls and public hearings and the survey that people participated in through Engage Lexington has resulted in some of the proposed changes that we have in the packet today. And like Council Member Brown said, the most consistent feedback that we received was around density and distance considerations. So I look forward to our discussion today and I'm eager to see some of the recommended changes that we've included to be sent along to the Planning Commission for their review and a public hearing. From my perspective, the most crucial element of all of the regulations around short-term rental is maintaining the inclusion of neighborhood voices in the process. So while I know that the Board of Adjustment has seen a vast increase in the number of applications and hearings, I think that conditional use permit requirement in residential zones is very important for neighbors to be notified of planned short-term rentals in their community and provides them an opportunity to share their perspectives with the Board of Adjustment as these decisions are being made. So this is a very complex issue. We have worked through a lot of the details of this and it has been an evolving discussion And so I deeply appreciate all the hard work that's been done to try to find a local solution here to really what is a national problem. So that's where I will start. We have Evan Thompson here to give our presentation on some of the changes that we are looking at for the ordinance. And I'll turn it back to you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Council Members. Mr. Thompson, please. Thank you, Chair. Alrighty. Thank you very much for your time today. I'll get started because the clock is ticking. So the background on short-term rental ordinances, when I mean short-term rental ordinances, I mean the zoning ordinance and the code of ordinance licensing requirements approved by this committee around March 7, 2023. Planning commission approved the ZODA with some limited recommendations on May 11, 2023. Ordinance were approved by council on July 11, 2023. And it started being implemented based on the ordinance texts around January 11, 2024. And as of, I think it was Monday of last week, Division of Revenues approved 686 special fees licenses. So that's just some background information to try to get us back to where we were about, like you said, a year ago. So we'll start with the recommended changes for Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances. Those are the licensing requirements. So, if you'll recall, being a hosted, and just so everybody understands, I'll be referring to page numbers from the packet in the ordinance text to try to help see where these changes are to help you understand what I'm talking about better. So the current version of the code of ordinances is, so to be a hosted short-term rental, the The dwelling unit on the subject property has to be a primary residence with the primary resident occupying the property while it's being rented out. In that requirement, it requires the licensee or the applicant to provide some documents to us to show that it's a primary resident. That includes motor vehicle registration, driver's license, motor registration, tax documents, utility bill. So the proposed version, and that's around on page 39, is to kind of change up the document requirement. To basically to require an unexpired driver's license or a voter registration card indicating the address and one of the documents that's listed on the screen there, tax document, bank statement, motor vehicle registration, utility bill. And that's just to better ensure that we're actually getting the evidence we need to show that it's a primary residence. Because there could be a possibility that you provide two of the following documents on the left-hand side that might not really adequately show the most up-to-date information for you. And so you'd be able to potentially be a primary resident without actually being a primary resident. So this is trying to clean that up, trying to make it easier and better, making sure we can better understand when they are a primary resident when they are not. when somebody is a primary resident someone is not so also the another another suggested recommended changes on 42 of the packet and so right now current current version STRs expire upon certain things happening you know December 31st because it's a year license a change in licensee or ownership of a dwelling unit uses a short-term rental or the revocation of conditional use permit. So the proposed version also adds another reason, which is basically if you got a license for a hosted short-term rental, for instance, and you start using it as unhosted short-term rental. The idea being that you applied for a hosted short-term rental, so you shouldn't be able to use it for unhosted short-term rental, or vice versa. So that would be another suggested recommendation. Another suggested recommendation for the code ordinance changes really relates to the duties of a licensee. There's a significant number of duties that are licensees required to perform under the Chapter 13 of the Code. Examples include safety requirements, you know, you got to have some post certain information on the property so that the person renting it out can have, you know, better information, more safe information, and all that stuff, make sure they understand that they can file complaints about violations of the ordinance and where to do that. Prohibition on parties, private events, and then also certain reporting requirements. So that's as it is now. Proposed changes, and the proposed changes are on 44 to 45 of the packet. The first one is a limitation on the number of people being able to occupy the short-term rental. Current version is maximum of two per bedroom plus an additional four up to 12. Proposed version is max of two individuals per bedroom plus an additional two individuals up to 10. So basically instead of 12, you can have up to 10 based on the number of rooms and plus the additional individuals allowed. Also adds two more duties to licensees requirements. And that's one being that you can only have one contract per STR at a time. Basically then the two separate groups can't book the same property for the same dates. And then also that the licensees can't allow whole house rentals for dwelling units occupied by somebody other than transient guests. I think there's sometimes we were, the Division of Urbanity was finding that people were renting out their whole house, but being a hosted short term rental. And that's very difficult to understand how that would work because somebody's staying in it. So trying to make sure, and it's easier way for us to understand that it's actually being used as a hosted short term rental. isn't just a unhosted short-term rental that somehow got through is licensed as a hosted short-term rental so that's that's how it is you can you know there's there's other ways if you look on the airbnb's website for instance as just an example renting rooms and shared spaces and that would be the way you do for hosted short-term rental there's also some cleanup changes that i won't spend too much time on because it's they're not too substantive one of them is you You know, they're both on page 41 of the packet, and basically just making the provision about requiring planning approval as part of your application. It's currently nine lines long, and so I'm making it like two. So more helpful to understand because it's more succinct, and obviously the old joke of why write two lines when you can write nine? And so I'm reversing that, why write nine when you can write two? So the other one is that instead of using, so there's the provision that in the application you provide how many people you're going to allow, maximum you're going to allow. The version now is consistent with language and we changed to no greater than language just to help them understand that it's not just putting 12 or 10 if this is amended, putting you know up to that amount so if you don't believe that you want 10 you can put fewer than that and that's perfectly fine and then so those are the changes to the code of ordinances the next are the recommended changes to the zoning ordinance i'm at 7 30 that's exactly half this is good so the uh the first one is on page 47 of the packet it's changes to the chart And a lot of these are more stylistic than anything. In the previous version, they weren't grouped by single-family lots or multifamily group residential lots. You see it by the crossed-out lines that they were really just by different zone groupings, and then we basically differentiated for some of them for single-family versus multifamily. So what we're doing is we're grouping them based on single family lots in those zones that allow it, and multifamily and group residential in those that allow it. Try to make it more helpful to understand. Some substantive changes are that we are adding the CN zone, which I believe is corridor node. Sweet. And also the other substantive change is that we are allowing, it is going to be one dwelling unit or one ADU. In the past, the current version is that it stands now. For hosted, you can get a dwelling unit and an ADU, so we're reducing it to one or the other, dwelling unit or an ADU for those. And then also another substantive change is in that if you look in that B1, P1, MU1, MU2, MU3 zones. There's the 25% max. We're adding OR1, whichever is greater, because in the chance that potentially a 25% max could be less than 1. That's happened, and we want to make sure it's clear that you can at least get 1, not like a half or something like that. It doesn't really work. So those are the substantive changes on that chart. it was just easier to show you and explain it then try to try to explain it in text so the next is just like in the code of ordinance changes there was the change to from the total a max total of 12 to the to a max total of 10 and obviously in the conditional uses it stays the same conditional uses the amount the numbers are set by the board of adjustment so you get So under the proposed text, you get a maximum of two individuals per bedroom plus an additional two, or a total of ten, whichever is less. There's also some additional considerations for the Board of Adjustment. As council members mentioned, there was some discussion about adding potentially the interest of adding more guidance for the Board of Adjustments and making their determination for conditional use permits. And these are additional changes, these aren't the only changes. I'm just adding the additional ones. So the additional ones are whether the property is being considered in high demand for SDRs, and also it's whether or not the property being considered in the neighborhood that may be vulnerable to involuntary displacement. There would also be the removal of the consideration of the distance between short-term rentals because we're adding that, and you'll see right now, I've kind of buried the lead a little bit, but the idea that we're limiting them to even be able to get short-term rentals, so we're taking that consideration out for the conditional use permit for the Board of Adjustment because it's being made before it even gets to them. And that's basically the spatial requirements under the changes, and those spatial requirements are on page 48 to 49. of the packet are that no short-term rental requiring a conditional use permit so that would be that would be unhosted in residential zones as well as hosted short-term rentals that are that want greater than 10 resident or 10 occupants can't that they can they cannot be located with their no short-term rental can be with requiring a conditional use permit can be located within 500 feet of another STR that's already received a conditional use permit or is otherwise grandfathered in. So basically and so basically if there's a short-term rental requiring a conditional use permit you can't be located within 500 feet of another short-term rental that requires a conditional use permit. That's a bit of a clarification but the and then the also besides that 500 feet requirement, the number of short-term rentals requiring a conditional use permit can't exceed 3% of all dwelling units within a given thousand feet in residential zones. Of course, these changes don't leave those hosts, those licensees, those applicants with no relief whatsoever. They can still apply to the Board of Adjustment and provide justification based on the reasons provided in here and these are based on on louisville's reasons too so this is very much very similar to louisville's i think louisville has a 600 feet requirement ours is 500 and also the 3% of all dwelling units within a thousand so you can if if you're adjacent to non-residential zones that allow for strs as a regulated as a conditional use basically a separation from other strs regulated as a conditional use within the buffer area so basically there's something that you know a road a physical you know geographic or something separation from other SDRs regulated conditional use within the buffer area if you're on the perimeter of the of the buffer area and some of your properties actually located outside of the buffer area then you can potentially seek relief from the Board of Adjustment and also just in case there's a if there's a neighborhood plan that encourages and supports sdr's regulated and conditional use in the subject area so if there's a neighborhood plan that somehow recommends short-term rentals as a conditionally regulated as a conditional use in that area then that would be another reason why someone could potentially get relief from the board of adjustment and and just like the uh the billboards discussion this is a part of this the recommended changes are zoda so it would obviously be you'd be recommending to the plant initiation of the you initiate a text amendment to the Planning Commission and they'd have their 60 days to after after that resolution passes they have 60 days to make their have a public hearing and make the determination and recommendations and they send it back to you for a vote the code of ordinance would probably go just like it did last time and go forward but then wait to be passed until they're both ordinances passed concurrently, so that way we don't have the problem with two different regulations saying two different things. All right, thank you very much. Committee members, are there questions, comments? Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for the presentation. If you go back to one of the last slides, the one on the spatial limitations one, I wanted to ask you on that second item on that page. Let's see, it's towards the end there. The number of short-term rentals requiring a conditional use permit can not exceed 3% of the dwelling units within any 1,000 feet in residential zones. Can you give me maybe even a visual picture of how you would calculate that? Are you looking at a particular unit and then drawing a big circle? How does that work? Yes, it would be within the unit. The unit being considered would be 1,000 feet around that is from what I understand the way it works. Okay, so you're looking at the one that's applying and then drawing the circle. Yeah. Got it. Thank you. And then go back one slide for me, the additional considerations for Board of Adjustments. Those two considerations, and I understand like so much of their job ends up being a little bit subjective of considering all these different factors because every case is a little bit different. I just wonder like how are we asking them to consider what the idea of high demand is? Like is there a number? Is there a way we measure that? and also how do we measure or consider the idea of vulnerability to involuntary displacement? Yeah, so for the high demand area, I think that it's largely based on the idea being that STRs might be needed more in those areas where there might be amenities that people go use STRs to go see so those areas that I would potentially have you know around you know like I do what I can think of right now is you know around Rupp might have more of a you know more in high demand for for for some kind of place for people to stay then you know somewhere on the in this what's considered the suburbs of Lexington for that for instance that for instance and then the whether the the property is being considered within an area, a neighborhood that may be vulnerable to involuntary displacement. I believe that's, I'm trying to think of how that is. I think that is currently right now a consideration that the planning staff provides to the planning commission. So I'm not sure if it might make more sense for planning to answer that one. Sorry for putting you on the spot. So currently the Division of Planning does review the Neighborhoods in Transition Report, which identifies 10 census tracts that are considered potentially at risk of displacement and gentrification. And to date, we have recommended disapproval of short-term rentals within those 10 census tracts. And so we felt it important to make it part of the ordinance so that it's clear to applicants that that would be considered. So during the process before the Board of Adjustment, would your recommendation be part of that application? Yes, in every case it's part of the staff report. Okay, and do you also offer either an opinion or a recommendation on the idea of high demand area? What today we've, or as of today, we've looked at really tourism destinations as what would create a higher demand and or near downtown. That's where we've seen the higher concentration of short-term rentals, and I think that's consistent with where we think people would want to stay. I guess I'm asking, is that part of your recommendation to the BOA when it comes before them? Do you say as planning staff, we consider this area to be a high demand area or not? We report what the concentration is within that thousand, the ring, the thousand feet. And if it is in the neighborhood of 10% or more, that is an indication to us that there's a high demand in that area. And so we do, or we have recommended approval for those higher concentrations, but they're not within, typically within a neighborhood. They're near downtown, or Rupp Arena. Thank you for that. And then my last question is, has the Board of Adjustment asked either us or you all or us through you all for any specific or particular guidance in terms of the process? Because I know there was some certain challenges to them trying to implement and trying to make these determinations. Have they asked for specific kinds of guidance? We have had two work sessions with the Board of Adjustment to discuss their authority to regulate conditional uses in general, as well as short term rentals specifically. And they have expressed concerns, but there's not been a consensus of how they believe the council should amend the regulations to address their concerns. I do believe the spacing requirement and concentration really gets to those concerns, though. All right, thank you, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilmember Lynch. Okay, can you hear me? Okay, there we go. I feel like I know the answer to this question, but I want to ask it anyway. So the maximum number of individuals has been decreased from 12 to 10. Just a little bit of background information regarding that change. I think for that change it was recommended that based on the discussions that council members may have had with the neighborhoods and the number of 12 being potentially too high. And so 10, I think the idea is 10 is a more right fitting number for a short term rental instead, 12 might be a little too high. So that's the idea of that. And it's maximum of 10 if you have enough bedrooms plus two to make 10. It's not just automatically 10. Right, right. I just want to make sure that's clear. So if you have a two bedroom, you won't get to 10. Right. My next question is regarding the proposed change regarding making sure that the operator is not renting the unit or leasing the unit to two different people at the same time. two contracts at the same time, is that a preventative measure or a reactionary measure? Are we seeing folks do that or is this just a preventative measure to make sure that this is not going to happen? I'd probably defer to revenue as to whether or not they've been hearing those things, but I would think at least it's more of a, I would think it would be more of a preventative, but I haven't heard, just because I haven't heard anything, but revenue might be saying something. That's not a complaint that we've gotten so far, but we just want to try and keep in mind how we can best make sure we avoid those issues in the future. Okay, that's really good to know. And then my last comment is, my last thing I'll say is just a comment and a thank you, because I was not in agreement with one of the Board of Adjustments decisions that happened in my district this year regarding allowing a short-term rental. in one of my neighborhoods in my district that is a very vulnerable neighborhood for involuntary displacement and gentrification. So thank you planning staff for hearing me on that and doing that legwork to make sure that the Board of Adjustment has those parameters for the future as they're considering other STRs in vulnerable neighborhoods. The Neighborhood and Transition Task Force did a lot of good work. That report is really good and they highlighted some very appropriate neighborhoods that need some extra love and protection. So I'm very pleased that that is going to be before the Board of Adjustment to part of the consideration process when they're looking at the STR application. So thank you for that. Thank you, Chair. I just want to mention, too, that, you know, obviously where areas that could be subject to involuntary displacement could change over time, right? And the fact, but if you look at, I invite everybody to look at the report. It shows the factors that are used to make that determination, and those are all right there. and could be easily changed in the future if somehow the area is how that changes over time. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Chair. We all know that this is a really complex issue, and I know it's been hard, so I want to thank my colleagues for taking this up and working on it. I represent a district that has, I think, the most short-term rentals and includes a lot of downtown. And so I'm both representing a group of people that are concerned about the short-term rentals being in their neighborhoods and about the lack that how that might affect housing stock. And then I'm also representing people that are using it to help supplement their income and that find it important, you know, to how they live to supplement it. So I want to be respectful of both of those perspectives. And I guess I'm going to give a few scenarios so that I can understand better in these scenarios what will happen. But first, I guess I'm a little confused by this idea that it's okay to have more concentration of short-term rentals downtown because the places that you're mentioning are actually neighborhoods. They're just downtown neighborhoods. They're still neighborhoods with houses. And so it might be better to have some of the short-term rentals in our city spread out throughout the city than concentrated in certain neighborhoods, even downtown neighborhoods close to Rep Arena. And so I think I disagree with this idea that they can be in more desirable places instead of spread out, you know, and throughout the city. And a lot of people that use short-term rentals are not just tourists. A lot of them are in the medical field, and they're here for a few months working and contributing to the economy. So I just want us to maybe think about that when we talk about where we can have more and where we can't. I'm in support of these neighborhoods that we need to protect and that we want to make sure are not gentrifying and getting developed. So I'm not saying that. I'm just saying maybe we want to spread things out and not think of certain places to concentrate. If somebody owns a three-plex or a duplex, and they currently have short-term rentals there, are they grandfathered in? And if they were going to be wanting to have the short-term rentals under the new rules, they would not be allowed to have them next door to each other, correct? If they're already existing and have conditional use permits, then this wouldn't make everybody lose their already existing conditional use permits. So as long as they're permitted properly right now, this isn't going to affect those people. The spatial would not, assuming that they stay in the property and don't. I think it could potentially change once the property changes hands to new ownership. but as it pertains to the person or entity that has a conditional use permit, the spatial requirements aren't going to kick them out. Okay. And then another scenario that some constituents brought to me is they live in their house half of the week or they are gone on the weekends. So if somebody is living in a space part-time and they're considered when they rent it out as unhosted because they're not there during the days that they're renting it out. Okay. Okay. Okay. And then I ran into another constituent recently who was very upset by all of these rules that have come into place and stated that for her it was impossible to go through the process. like her daughter is one of the owners of the house and that it was going to be too costly to get all the insurance, et cetera, et cetera. She was crying because for her, she lives alone. This was part of her retired income. So I want us to see the whole picture, and I'm very sensitive to the negative effects, but there are some positive effects that affect really real people that are working or retired, and this is affecting them negatively. So I just want us to be aware of that as well. The Division of Revenue and Division of Planning are here to help people get through the process as much as they can. And if it's purely related to insurance, I'd probably recommend checking with whatever platform they're using. Sometimes the platform provides insurance for you. So that might be something to consider if you want to pass that along to your constituent, if that's a major cost. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Legree. Thank you, Chair. I want to build on what Councilmember Reynolds said about the definition of neighborhoods. I think sometimes we don't think about downtown as a neighborhood, but I think that that's a flawed approach. I do think that downtown and then around the University of Kentucky campus and then proximate to central bank center. These are all neighborhoods, albeit neighborhoods with multifaceted housing and business types. I understand that there is a range of different zoning within those neighborhoods. But along those lines, I just want to clarify, I want to make sure I understand. On page 48 of the ordinance, after section G, we have one, two, three, four. That section is where it says whether the property being considered is located in the area containing a mixture of land uses and or zoning categories that may create a high demand for short term rentals. So I want to clarify, does that mean if the area's kind of pattern of development makes it more desirable for short term rentals, then it's more likely to be recommended as yes for short term rentals? Is that what I'm hearing you say? Yes, I think so, yes. But that does mean that some neighborhoods then are more likely to be, I guess, disrupted in terms of the long term kind of dwelling fabric of the neighborhood by short term rentals because they're more attractive to tourism, for example. Is that accurate? I think that is the gist of that particular provision, is that in those areas where there's a mixture of land uses and zoning categories that make it more, create a more high demand for it are the places that they would be going, or be more likely to be recommended. Of course, still with the idea that there are still the density and the concentration requirements before you can even get there. Okay, I do want to say that sometimes the things that make neighborhoods attractive for transient visitors are also the things that make neighborhoods attractive for people who want to live there long term. And I really hope that and appreciate the distance requirements and the incorporation of limits on concentrations for short term rentals within our neighborhoods. Because I hope that those changes, which I think are definitely a step in the right direction, will help us to strike more of a balance. And from what some of us have been hearing from some of our neighborhoods, especially some of the neighborhoods I represent, I was hearing a lot of discussion about the need for density requirements and the like. So I'm really glad to see that change and I did want to just push back on the neighborhood definition as part of this conversation. So thank you all for your work on this. I know it's been a lot of labor and a lot of conversations with residents and with staff to get us to this point. That's it, Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Gray. Thank you, Chair. So my first question is actually regarding the software. I'm just curious where we are with the implementation of the software. Yeah, we have, the software's broken up into four separate modules. We are working on implementing three of those, and we are using one of them right now. So it's address identification. We have about 85% of the active short-term rentals identified, and that is something we're working on finalizing the last little bit of that and having them identify where those units are that are listed that have not registered with us. The second is the compliance monitoring, which allows us to have a more automated workflow whenever we're doing our notices or sending out citations. The third is the communication and complaint platform, which I think is one of the most important for you all and your constituents. So that way there's a clear pathway to be able to provide those complaints if there are any issues. That's something that should be, that's the other piece that we're implementing right now. That should be up sometime early to mid-September. We're working on finalizing that. And then the last piece will be the permitting and the payment for the short term rental license. we do we do a annual renewal cycle for all of our regulated licenses and so we're working to have that up before that mail out of those renewal notices starts in december okay thank you sir and so um looking at um the short-term rental um updates that we're receiving i noticed that we are merely only addressing um within i guess outside of the rural areas and i'm just curious as to i mean this might be a question to my colleagues as to why we're not also addressing the agricultural areas as well as they are also short-term rentals that we spoke about briefly at some point yeah so the you know we see these policies as two different policies in the rural short-term rental policy that came from the rural land management we will take up in september at this committee meeting in september so how i visualize it is that you know if this moves forward we'll send this to planning commission to consider edits and then we'll do the same with the rural policy as well september and one more question why do you consider them being two separate issues i think the issues that impact and what the folks in the rural community have shared with us in the policy that was recommended to council is different from what we're hearing from more urban neighborhoods. So I just, I can see a policy, so I can see a policy getting convoluted by different issues from different parts of our city that I think we can we can address in two different conversations personally council member did you want to add anything else okay well thank you chair thank you and councilman brown if i could add to that if i recall our initial uh text amendments related to short-term rentals generally uh did not include the uh the agriculture area we handled everything inside the boundary as itself and requested the rural land management board to review the issue and provide recommendations which they have and are being reviewed so i think from the start these have been viewed as two separate two separate approaches same same use but two separate approaches council members of vigny thank you chair for recognizing me even though i'm not on the committee I've got a question. I need just a variety of clarifications. So what I'm understanding is if I switch from a hosted to an unhosted or unhosted to hosted, my license expires. You have to get a new one. I need to get a new license. Does the same thing happens if I am currently an unhosted, I have a current conditional use and I'm illegal unhosted. I sell my property or the property has a transition. The conditional use carries with the property, but the license does not carry. Neither of them carry. The conditional use doesn't carry? I thought that that's originally the way we did this. That the. Customer Brown, would you like to clarify? So the way we wrote the original policy, the policy doesn't prohibit it from conveying, but the BOA can put that condition on the permit when they approve it. Does that make sense? So our policy doesn't prohibit it from conveying. have they been putting it on all of them that it expires okay so basically if the property transitions to another owner at that point the either planning and or revenue will look at where that property is and decide if when they draw a ring around it if it if it if it's by itself in 500 feet it's approvable if it's not by itself in 500 feet then it's unapprovable correct not unapprovable they could still apply to the board of adjustment with through those factors waiver yes and that's for yeah exactly so it's not impossible there's a way forward that they could go um for specific cases um and i before i didn't thank my colleagues for for working on this i know we're big on thanking everyone you guys have really worked hard on it i do appreciate it i appreciate your guys hard work too because it's not easy um so my other questions are so i did a little um i i um i would argue that i also have some i have particular neighborhoods that are super attractive and super sensitive to this situation um and so i took some of my neighborhoods and i did the i drew my circle um so my suggestion is when we when this gets finalized before it comes back to me to vote yes or no on I'd like to actually describe what we're like I would say from the center point of of the property in question and any any property that is in a circle that gets touched is included I would just I would just make it pretty solid if we could. We utilize GIS for that and we take the entire parcel of where the dwelling unit is so we don't have to figure out what the center is or where the address point is so it's from the part the entire parcel and do the 500 foot distance from that from the edge of the parcel in each direction. Yeah. And the same with the thousand feet. Okay as long as you can do that with GIS and then any property that is even partially touched are you going to include yes okay and then part of the relief is hey I'm one of those I'm on the edge cut in half right yeah okay and they can ask for that so in one of my districts just so you know that's that's about 90 it's about 90 homes so it would be close to a one percent density so which is i think reasonable like i and i know we we go up to three so my question is when you go through the exercise are you going to say a property failed on the one percent but on the 500 rule but it actually succeeds on the thousand foot rule for density like when you when you make a recommendation to the board of adjustment so they're going to have to pick which one matters to them well yeah currently as it's drafted it you can't both of them are true so you can't have either so if one of them it if one just even one of them fails then you have to get the relief provided you have to use the relief provided by the draft it's not just it's not one or the other like if it's not like you get okay you're within you're within 500 feet but you're with you're you're outside but you're you satisfy the five percent you would you have to do both okay that that's okay and then my last question is um am i I had a time thank you thank you I actually have struggling with well I I think I know what a buffer zone means but if I'm struggling with it I kind of just wonder if the public and someone who's applying for it is going to struggle with it and I'm wondering why we also didn't think about just precincts as a density factor because a precinct is typically three to four houses or three or four hundred residential units it has clear boundaries it generally stays within lines of a within lines of major roads I'm not I'm not sure if precincts were considered but I think for precincts the I think for precincts you know they they could potentially change a whole lot more often than what 500 feet is for instance right precinct could change every 10 10ish years for and so obviously Based on because that those are based on population sizes, right? They all have to be Within a certain percentage of each other. So, you know if some big development goes in for instance, you might skew it and basically end up being that you end up having a moving target so to speak I think that might be the part of the reason why something like a precinct would work but of course that's that's something that's up for your all purview thank you and it is the buffer zone what I thought it was the buffer zones the like 500 feet within the 500 feet area the circle within the buffer zones this is the circle the 500 foot circle is It's called the buffer zone. Or the thousand foot is the buffer zone. Thank you. Or the danger zone if you want to go that far. I don't think it's ever defined. I think it would help to define it then. Thank you. Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. I recused myself in the first time because I thought it was appropriate. I didn't ask law. I just thought when I had a pecuniary gain, it was probably to my and everybody else's that I stay out of it. But since I'm a hosted and this really is an effect to host it, I don't really feel like going forward this is going to have an impact on me, but it does have, and being probably the most knowledgeable person with short term rentals, since I've been a super host for five years, I'm a premium host for the last, with VRBO, I probably have gone through the process, unlike anybody else up here, and know the issues that we all had to address. And so I think it's probably better if I participate than just not. So now I do have unique experience here looking at when you talk about primary residence. And this might be just unique to me. I'm sure, I don't know if there's others, but I own a building that's a multifamily building that has two addresses. And according to the PVA, it says it's multifamily. It could be considered a duplex that have two addresses. Now if it says with the new one I have to have a current voter or a driver's license, I'm not going to have that because I'm going to have it on one of the addresses, but I live downstairs and they're upstairs and I have a door that goes upstairs. So yeah, so hosted short term rental includes potentially living in another dwelling unit on the property. So you would show that you live on another dwelling unit on the property. But as for a driver's license or voter registration, they're going to be different addresses. And I think it would just be one of those things that if you provide more information to show that it's the same property. I just don't want to have it where it says that, you know, your driver's, I mean, I could change my driver's license to that other same building. So that's just something I think that needs to maybe be looked at when we're doing that. And the occupancy, I guess the three things I've heard most about is the special regulations, the number of guests, and the neighborhood in transitions. Those are probably the three things that I've heard from other people who are in this particular business, and it is a business. but we also want to be good neighbors I mean I I let my neighbors use it when their families come in because I want to be a good neighbor but the occupancy how you define an occupancy because I've got two bedrooms I can have four people up there in before I could have another four people to eight now was that eight people to get stay in it or is that eight people that can actually come visit at one time because I just had some people for UK come in there were four of them and then they had three kids the kids didn't stay there But when they came over to visit their family, that makes it at seven. Does that now make it no longer allowed? I have to kick one of the kids out of the house now because they're only allowed six people in there? Because how do you define an occupancy? Is it they're sleeping at night or do they come over into that building? So there's also the requirement about no private events over the amount and all that stuff. I'd have to look into that situation, but I can get back with you on that. that that's what i mean i i don't look at parties and you start looking at a number yeah parties are you know there's obviously restrictions on parties that if there's a higher if there's a higher number of people in there because it's a party or private event that's like ticketed or something then you can't have over the occupancy number but i i i think we need to find what occupancy is just because if their kids come over to see their family then i can't i get to one when i see i have it on the ringer and i know comes knows who comes in and out of the building and i've got to go tell them you gotta have one your kids leave and i'm not sure is that what we're trying to do i don't think so uh... and that's one of the issues that i think that we've been we initially started sixteen did we not and we we first had this then we went to twelve and now we're down to ten so it's been a a slow as well when it was a lot of years but i don't sixteen with alex i don't remember there being an individual and now it's ten I don't remember there being 16, but you might have a better memory than me. I remember the 12. Well, 12 is what finally happened, but I think 16 is what we initially were allowing, and then it went down to, and I still, can you go back through over the, I don't, the neighborhood that may be vulnerable to involuntary displacement, and can you, I'm still trying to understand that as how they define that, because that seems open-ended and is there definitions to explain that for people? I think it's generally allows some kind of some discretion towards the board of adjustment in making those determinations but I think ultimately to use the factors that are contained largely and the factors similar to what are used in the neighborhoods in transition task force report Or maybe not even necessarily, as I said before, always updating those to see where the areas are based on the factors in that report. And I can send you a copy of that report if you need it. And my time is up, so I guess I'll come back. Does that have one more question? Go ahead, Councilman. Thank you. And the exceed the 3%, can you explain that? And Tracy, you want to answer a question I asked? Yeah, in terms of the occupancy limit, the special events or weddings or any parties, any private gatherings is restricted by the number on your permit. So when the Board of Adjustment issues a permit, it says a particular occupancy. And that's for people sleeping there as well as any events. Right, right. But we're changing that now, though, are we not? To 10. Well, we're changing it to 6. If it goes 2, 2, plus 2, that goes to 6, does it not? Oh, for your particular case? Yes. Perhaps. But you already have a permit for something else, don't you not? So, but this is not going to apply to people, that's only going forward, so the other people are grandfathered in on the number, so if it was, if they had had 12 and they were already, then they can have 12, because I've had other people say now I have to go to 10. No. If they can stay. If you are granted a conditional use or you were granted permission as hosted and on your permit it says 12, that is what you can continue to do. So I think people don't understand that. So I think that's an issue that we have to get out there going forward that this will be what will be when they apply for. But when we apply come December 31st, will we go for this new rules or will we go for the grandfathered ones? whatever's on your zoning compliance permit won't change okay you do not have to come back and get a new zoning compliance permit what you're doing is renewing your license right with the division of revenue i think there are people who had a misconception of that one and then the last the three percent how do you derive that so it's three so if there's a hundred units around you there can't be three there can only be two other ones there is that how that would be done Correct, yes, and it's a maximum. Okay. So say you end up with 3.1%, well, we can't exceed 3%. And you'd have more than 100 units. It's a percentage of the properties within the 1,000 feet. And what is the circumference of that? 1,000 feet. 1,000 feet? Okay. I just also wanted to mention, you mentioned the years is, I can't remember if you said you had a conditional use permit or not, or it was just hosted okay because conditional use for conditional use permits those occupancy levels are set by the board so that's in your conditional use permit to show how many so that obviously would allow you to have that number that's set in the condition use permit regard and that that doesn't change that conditional use amount number doesn't change in this ordinance change it's all it's still going to be whatever the board sets it to be i asked the question somebody asked but that renews so that that that goes as long as they keep renewing that license then it will stay with that number correct when they had the conditional use and if they had 12. i think it was talk that's something that we'll have to i think discuss internally the i think she uh tracy was talking about for as it pertains to conditional use permits that number wouldn't change. I think potentially something that I need to think about some more but the idea is that you know the they have a permit now so if you know it might it might be something that the number would change in the next permit year if they renew. So that's what I was asking and you said that didn't happen but now you're saying it does happen. I think Tracy was thinking in terms of conditional use permits numbers which don't change because the conditional use is a set number is set by the board but if you're already licensed and you but you had a license because you had a conditional use and they they said that you could have 12 and then you go and you would still be able to have 12 because you have a conditional use permit and that number says you can have 12 so what are you saying that well that might change then with them for those that don't have a conditional use permit going forward going for after the next permit correct okay uh council brown if i if you're going to prepare to make a motion if you'll give me just one second um so the the idea about the transferability and the fact that the board of adjustment is putting a condition on the conditional use that it is not transferable which of course i think unless the ordinance states otherwise krs 100 would allow the board of adjustment to impose whatever conditions they see fit on a conditional use permit. I guess what I, and maybe we've, I don't know if we've had an issue where there's been a transfer and then the conditional use permit was not then awarded to the buyer to this point, which would certainly be of concern, but do they have or have we even had an application for some sort of proactive approval? because you can imagine if you put a contract on an investment home or investment property that you sought to use as a short-term rental, it's your due diligence. You would say, I'm not going to buy this property unless I get that approval. Otherwise, this property has no value to me. And so is there some sort of process to say, I'm not the owner, but I'm going to be the owner. If you all approve this, I'm going to go through with the purchase. So the advice we've given applicants is if they are intending to be the owner in the future, they need permission from the current owner to apply, but they make the application in their name so that when the permit is issued, it is to that particular either person or LLC, and then they can go to the next step and purchase the property and then go see revenue, and the permit is already in the correct name. Okay, so we're kind of, the logic is the same but reverse from a zone change, whereas in a zone change, you would apply in the owner's name for the zone change, even though we all know that it is the purchaser developer that's moving forward. But in this case, you're saying apply in your own name, even though you're not the owner yet, because you need that permit in your name. Exactly. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Council Member Brown? Thank you, Chair. And before I make a motion, I just wanted to speak to intent. And I think with the original policy, I think our intent was that folks that registered during the grace period would just be an allowable non-conforming use. And then if they went through the process to get a conditional use permit, that it could convey with the sale of the property. And I felt confident with doing that because if they were, If it was a problematic operator or something that the neighborhood had concerned about, that they can file complaints. And if they were documented, we could go through the process of license revocation. So the original intent was that if you got a conditional use permit, that it would convey with sale. The intent of these changes, or in my opinion, was that if you already have a conditional use permit and it had a number of occupancy approved by the board of adjustments whether it was at the max that was in the ordinance or you applied for more that it conveys when you renew your license with the revenue every year that that that permit in the occupancy that was granted by the board of adjustments is is what you have permission to have and it conveys or it stays in place when you renew your license. So that was the intent of the first draft of the ordinance that was approved, and that is the intent of these changes. Thank you, thank you, Chair. If there's no more questions, I'd make a motion to move this draft ordinance with the changes forward to the full council to be considered to move to the planning commission. So move. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries, thank you. The last item on our agenda is items referred to committee. Is there any action that any members of the committee would like to take on the items referred? Seeing none, then we're at the end of our agenda. We will stand adjourned. Thank you.