Thank you. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yes. Yes. It's actually what it's what it's what it's what it's what it's what it's what it's what it's what it's what it's what it's I don't know about the two of them. I know that all of them are from the last one. Just ask James to be here. How are you? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I couldn't call you. From there, today, I was rough and abstract. It's one of the reasons why I'm just a part of that. I'm thinking of what I'm going to do. First of all, you know, I'm thinking about what I'm going to do. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next room. Yeah. I'm going to go to the next room. Yeah, I'm going to go to the next room. Yeah, I'm going to go to the next room. Yeah, I'm going to go to the next room. Yeah, I'm going to go to the next room. Yeah, I'm going to go to the next room. Yeah, I'm going to go to the next room. Yeah, I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to have a chance. the now I call the Arlington City Council special meeting to order and the city council will now go into close session at 12.36 p.m. on May the first 2018. In accordance with the following sections of VTCA government code chapter 551.072, deliberation regarding real property, 0.87 deliberation regarding economic development negotiations. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Thank you. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the to I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the council. And now I'd like to call our Arlington City Council work session to order and I'll call upon Mr. Mike Bass to begin our discussion on short term rentals. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor council. Good afternoon. Mike Bass co-compliant services. So today I'm going to Thank you, Mayor. Mayor and Council, good afternoon, Mike Basko, Compliance Services. So today I'm going to provide a follow-up to last week's Council discussion and input related to the examination of short-term rentals. You should have it your place as two documents. The first document provides a summary of regulatory approaches adopted by other cities and I'll cover this during the first half of my presentation. The second document is sort of a checklist item that provides regulatory elements that you can consider. And again, I mechanisms seemed to approach the use of the zoning ordinance for most cities. There were a couple like Galveston that utilized license permits and business permitting regulations to address the regulation of short-term rentals. As far as the zoning districts and allowing or not allowing specific uses for short-term rentals, it kind of was across the board. As far as owner occupied, it was split amongst those that were home shares where the host is present or vacation rentals. Most cities were split with the exception of Fredrick'sburg, which recently adopted an ordinance where the particular use for a home share or a vacation rental was dependent upon the zoning. And in some zoning cases, they do not allow or they prohibit either use. So that the city of Frederickshire sort of fell right in the middle of all that. I'm gonna try to touch on some subjects that was of interest to the council last week. And so if I miss something that you have a particular need to have additional information on, please stop me. Let me know. I'll try to pause after each so that you all have an opportunity to discuss the information. As it relates to proximity, the city for worth provides a 400- buffer between short term rentals. The city of Santa Fe provides that a short term rental cannot directly adjoin to another short term rental on a residential zone street. As far as the caps on the numbers, Charleston does not allow for more than nine short-term rentals on one lot. Let me kind of expand on that a little bit. Charleston originally adopted their ordinance in 2012 and they specifically created an overlay where it was a commercial zoning district to which short-term rentals could be operated. Since that time, the council has amended but has not put into effect an ordinance which will go into effect in July where they have now allowed for a home share in each of the residentally-zoned districts that they have identified in their zoning chapter. So they have not provided a cap for those resident, residentally-zone districts. And it does have to be owner occupied as a principle, as a principle residents. As far as the caps on the number of percentage of homes, Savannah limits if it's not owner occupied to 20% of the parcels within the ward and they have wards that are depicted within each of their zoning districts. And let me go back. I missed one on the cap on numbers. Santa Fe has put a cap on the number of short-term rentals to no more than a thousand and they review that annually to determine whether or not that cap should move up or down. As far as the capital number of nights rented in a time period, Santa Fe originally in 2016 eliminated the restriction of 17 rentals per year and they amended to provide for only one rental every seven days. Registration and permitting and inspection all kind of fell within the norms, really not much that I can add to this other than it appears that hotel occupancy tax was collected for each of the cities. Parking parking was an issue or concern at the last meeting. The City of Fort Worth requires one off-street space per guest room plus two for the owner. Charleston provides for one off-street parking space in addition to required parking for the existing use of the property. Portland requires that if there is a short-term rental that has between three and five bedrooms that a parking study would have to be provided by the short term rental owner. The city of Santa Fe requires an off-street parking be one space per bedroom. As far as the number, I'm sorry. As far as the number. I'm sorry. Mike on the once parking space per bedroom off street. Is does that have to be provided within the boundaries of the owner's property? Yeah, I believe so they'll go through a plan review process to make that determination of whether or not it fits within those boundaries. Fort Worth for example requires it be behind the front setback or front building line and that it has to be it has to have some sort of a barrier or landscaping element to hide the parking of the vehicles. Okay, thank you. Our as far as the maximum number of rental days, Boulder does not allow for an accessory unit to be rented more than 120 days in a calendar year with regards to occupancy. Fort Worth does not allow more than three guests per bedroom. City of Charleston allows up to four adults with no limits on children. The City of Savannah provides for no more than four adults with up to two bedrooms. And if it's three or more bedrooms, no more than two adults per bedroom. And then in Santa Fe, the total number is twice the number of bedrooms. So you can see everyone sort of has a different take on caps and occupancy. On limitation on types of events, both Fort Worth and Fredrick'sburg do not allow any weddings, receptions, events, or parties or gatherings. As far as noise restrictions, the city of Fredrick'sg has an ordinance that defines that noise can exceed 85 decibels during daytime hours, can exceed 70 decibels during evening hours and it cannot exceed 60 decibels during nighttime hours. And as far as the city of Santa Fe, north or other disturbances after 10 PM is prohibited. And then lastly, the one city that kind of stood out, but they do have a maximum number of bedrooms that they allow to be rented and that's the city of Asheville, where there can be no more than two guest rooms rented at the property. So I'll pause there before we move into some of the policy objective considerations and if y'all have any questions or if I need to go back and look at something with you. Any questions at this point? Okay. Oh, Miss Walman. Did any did you check on any of them or maybe you haven't gotten yet on compliance and how the consequences are compliance that they put in these restrictions yet. How was it you know how did they enforce yeah how was it in board sure so regulation and enforcement's the greatest challenge at each city has. The city of Denver has had the most successful program and they approach this with a fine offense and a certain number of violations within a certain time period to then review for revocation of the permit. And so that permit could be revoked permanently, it can be revoked for a certain amount of time, like 12 months, 24 months. And so with that in play, they've been able to keep somewhat of control over some of the issues that they've had there in Denver. So it varies. Every city is different. And for the most part though they sort of follow that continuum of citation, number of violations before revocation. They can also require that investigative administrative cost be recovered for purposes of doing the investigation. Mr. Parker. investigation. Mr. Parker. Notice Mike that all of these cities are very permissive when it comes to short-term rentals. Did we totally get rid of the Santa Monica model that was on the board last week? No, sorry, I just wanted to provide just some other cities for which you can then review and determine based upon what we discussed last week as to what is it, which you felt was important. Would you refresh us please on the Santa Monica model? Sure. So the Santa Monica model is based on a restrictive policy and it does allow for home sharing with the host onsite during the guest visit. It prohibits more than one residence within the city limits. It prohibits a vacation rental where there is no host on site. And exterior signage. They do have an inspection process for safety devices. And the collection of hotel occupancy tax. But there is no maximum number of rental nights that they're allowed to rent. So Santa Monica requires the owner to be on site and prohibits any type of rental where the owner is not on site, is that correct? Correct. All right, thank you. Any other questions at this point? Yes, Ms. Thalman. Mr. Bass, is it accurate that we don't currently have any ordinances or regulations long-term rentals? That's correct. Thank you Okay, all right mayor. Thank you. So last time I believe we heard some consensus on the following items that y'all were interested in providing for a permitting process, providing for a local contact to which they're available 24 hours and can respond in a specific amount of time and then provide for off-street parking. So what I'd like to do now is just try to start putting the pieces together, determine what other elements the council would like to consider so that we can further refine the approach and bring back something to you that you can continue to digest and give a speed back on. So you've seen the majority of this information last week but Mayor if I can I'll just walk through these and I'll stop it at each section and you know the council would like to ask any questions and we'll handle that way. So the first option is that the city could consider prohibiting. The city could utilize current regulations such as nuisance traffic, penal code. They could, the Council could consider a establishment clear definition in the EDC by revising definitions of the bed and breakfast. You can establish a clear definition in the EDC by adding a definition in lodging facilities, use category with the restrictions and regulations or you can establish a clear definition via standalone ordinance. Robert. Thank you, Mayor. As we go through these, and this is just my idea after looking at this material since our last meeting, it seems like we've got in somebody lives there most of the time and rents it out or loans it out or shares it some of the time. We have those where there is an on-site person and when I say on-site, I know I've stated at a few that might be referred to as bed and breakfast, but they were at least in my mind was a short-term rental deal where there was somebody there, a manager of the property who actually lived in this property full-time. They didn't own it. So they couldn't claim it as their homestead, but they cooked you breakfast in that sort of thing and kind of helped you with where you were. And then the third type is the non-owner occupied or non-on-site person. And for me anyway is going through these, I kind of see the regulatory frame more different in some respects for each one of those categories if we choose to look at them in those three categories. The registration, the fees, the CO, the inspection, the occupancy taxes, the complaints, I think all of that kind of in my mind sort of is that covers everybody. But beyond that, the number of days and some of that I think changes with each succeeding level of these, again, should we choose to do that. But I think the permit idea, and that was one of the things that was going to ask you, Mike, under Fredrick's bird on our little checklist thing, you have zoning ordinance checked. And my reading, and maybe I'm just misreading the checklist, my reading of the Fredrick's Bird ordinance says that a short-term rental permit is issued. So I don't know if it's mischecked or if I'm misreading or misunderstanding what you're trying to convey. Yes, are you correct? It was not so. So looking at the, for me, looking at the Fredricksburg ordinance and the Galveston ordinance that we had been happily provided by one of our citizens, I think the two of those, at least in my opinion, sort of represent a framework. I think the idea, if you own a property that is your intent to rent on a short-term basis and you don't live there or you don't live next to it, I think the idea that you gotta have a 24-7 contact person with a really short amount of time to respond to a complaint makes perfect sense. On the other end of the category, if you live there, or you are on site, then it's sort of, you're there. So while your contact information should be available, I don't think you, there needs to be a window. But anyway, that's sort of when I look through this, they sort of broke down that way. Charlie. Well, I'll throw this out. And that is the fact that whatever we decide here today, I think that we need to look at one of the primary tenants of the leadership that we are representing here for the city. And that is the fact that we never ask anybody to do anything that we wouldn't do ourselves. So what we're going to try to decide is to decide to put one of these things either next to somebody else. And if we are going to put it next to somebody else, would we want that product next to us? And that's why I bring that aspect out. I personally would be appalled if one of these things moved in next door to me. There is a lot of things that go wrong where the city will not be there to back me up. There's a lot of things that are going to happen in the wee hours of the night that you can't legislate for. And like I said, if I'm going to assume a leadership position and trying to find out a definitive answer for this problem, I would say that if I wouldn't want it next to me, I certainly wouldn't approve it and put it in an ordinance. So that's the aspect when I take a look, if you don't want to tie it to a homestead exemption, then you should probably tie it to aner occupied requirement in an effort to be responsible for that particular action if you're going to go into this type of, and I do mean business because it is a business. So that's my input. Dr. Myers. Thank you, Mary. Before we go any farther, may I pick up on something that Mr. Parker was just alluding to? I know I asked you a question about the Unified Development Code. Last time on Article 3 of the Youth Standards. Could we take a look at that? Because I'm still unclear, because it talks about prohibiting, says because of effects of surrounding it. It talks about preventing home-based businesses, bed and breakfasts, and other such transient lodging. So I'm again unclear what was meant when this was originally written into the UDC. And I'd like some clarity before we proceed in this question of how we treat these. All right. Can you bring up that slide, please? Thank you. So this is the two definitions that's there in the UDC related to household living. Household living is where you have single family dwelling, multi-family dwelling and encapsulated in that. But when you read the definition it says, this huge category is characterized by residential occupancy of a dwelling unit by a household. Tenancy is arranged on a month to month or longer basis. Lodging where tenancy may be arranged for a period of less than 30 days is classified under lodging facilities. So that's why the next definition of lodging facilities. Four profit facilities where lodging, meals, and the like are provided to transient visitors and guests for a defined period. Specific use types include bed and breakfast in hotels, overnight parking facility and trailer camp or RV park. So for the definition that's there in the UDC today, lodging facilities do provide for transient visitors, but we have specific use types listed under it. That's where short term rental is not listed today. That's Mars. So therefore the question would be if we are to proceed and it ordinance, we would have to add it under this particular language in order to facilitate its usage. That's correct. Just one more question because it is not specifically written as specifically written, let me say this again, since it is not listed as a specific use type at this point, does that necessarily prohibit it or is it just silent? It is prohibited for the home-based business piece, because the home-based business definition and the prohibited piece talks about any kind of transient lodging which would include all of these and any others. So yeah, as a home-based business it's not permitted. So a short-term rental that's being utilized solely as a home-based business would that therefore be prohibited? It should not be considered as a home-based business that's what our definition says that be considered as a home-based business. That's what our definition says that it is not a home-based business. If it is the way we would add it would be as a lodging facility and not as a home-based business. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Parker, for clarity purposes, looking at those two particular clauses. Currently short-term rentals would be illegal in the city of Arlington, is that correct? I wouldn't say anything to that because right now we are totally silent on that. Well, as a home-based business, it is not allowed. Gentsi, essentially, they are operating for less than 30 days and lodging people. So they are not following the category in the first and the first paragraph. And they are not mentioned in the category in the second paragraph utilizing the facility as a business. So since they are omitted from that, from both of those particular paragraphs specifically, would they not be considered illegal currently? So that's where the interpretation comes about. So then we are totally silent on that specific item. That's where the interpretation will come about and we need to make a decision if we want to interpret it in that way that it's prohibited. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. So I'm not sure if I should continue on. Yes, I understand. Would anyone like to come forward with a general recommendation or Miss Wolff, yes. I do not have a recommendation just for clarification, so therefore a short-term rentals are not included in lodging. Certainly not. short-term rentals are not included in lodging. They're certainly not. I'm sorry. Yes, therefore everything, all of them that are operating now are illegal. Again, it's again, if you're silent, you do whatever you want to be decided on. If we come in regardless of what the short term rental ordinance, because I have a feeling whatever we put on the books, first try out will be reviewed and look that annually. And there can be changes made as we learn, oh oh we missed that one and we did that one. So if we want to protect our neighborhoods, our single family neighborhoods, with this point could add short-term rentals under the lodging and then we as council can continue to work through specifics. Is that correct? Yes, we can do that. Okay. Mr. Glasping. Thank you, Mayor. I think one of the things that Mr. Bassett asked and at first, we wanted to prohibit or not, right? Or wasn't looking to how to deal with it. I go back to what Mr. Parker was saying. I'm not thrilled about the idea of one being next to me, but I probably could tolerate if we had the right right guidelines behind it. So I think that's that's kind of our challenge. I'm sorry. Mr. Mr. Shepard. I guess for purposes of trying to get off this slide, can we can we agree to add a definition for short term rental somewhere? Whether it's in the definitions or it's in the lodging facilities, I think we're all in agreement that we need to define what short term rental is. So that's my proposal for getting off of this slide. Is there one in agreement with that? Okay. All right. Okay. Yes, Dr. Marsh. I had a question just in addition to that. Well, I agree that that moves us forward. I just before we moved in the next set of slides. If we are directing staff going forward, each of these are not finite choices. The first one is, but the second one, if we're going to proceed with the idea that we define a short term under lodging facilities, are we going to do it if we're going to embed it in the UDC? Does that mean we also then just point it for clarification where we'd have to have a separate ordinance or can we delve it off of that? So some of these things are I know we're getting in the minutia here, but before we go forward in thinking about the pieces and parts, what I'd like to know is How can we craft this so that it fits with our current traffic ordinances and our parking ordinances and our noise ordinances And how is that going to look like? Maybe I'm just needing the bigger picture, but could staff or someone help me understand that a little bit better? Yes, Galen, Gatton, Assistant City Attorney. Yes, there's definitely pros and cons to different ways you approach it. If you were to go with, for instance, the courts have been very clear that, as Mr. Shepherd, I believe, was indicating it's definitely better to err on the side of overclassifying and making sure that you're specifying different types versus just lumping them all into one category. Also you need to consider the enforcement aspect and then the amount of time that you would go into. So for instance, if you wanted to do an amendment to the UDC, you would be looking at like any text amendment, you'd go to PNZ and then it would come back here to be approved. The positives to putting something in the UDC is that as a health and safety violation, you'd be able to assess a larger fine. With a standalone ordinance not rooted in zoning, you would be looking at a maximum of $500 a day versus the 2004 or the other. The other aspect is there is a recommendation or an option here regarding definition of bed and breakfast. And you would probably be better served if you tried to make sure that you distinguish between those two by not mixing up bed and breakfasts as they currently are with this short term rental. It'd be better served to direct it if you were going to put it in the UDC to put it in as a separate lodging category. So definitely those are all things to consider and staff is prepared to go in any direction you want. Well it looks like then obviously it should be a separate category within the I'm not sure what you're going to do. I'm not sure what you're going to do. I'm not sure what you're going to do. I'm not sure what you're going to do. I'm not sure what you're going to do. I'm not sure what you're going to do. I'm not sure what you're going to do. the UDC to figure out in what zoning districts lodging facilities are permitted and I haven't been able to answer that question yet. So while I'm fine with defining it, I'm not sure that I'm fine with putting it under lodging facilities as opposed to creating a separate standalone short-term rental ordinance. Okay. Not trying to be difficult, but- Ms. Topel, you want to clarify? Yeah. That's a very good question. That was the next thing that I was going to bring up. If we do add short-term rental as a subtype under the lodging facilities, then we do need to decide which zoning districts it would be allowed in, whether it would be a SUP. So for example, bed and breakfast in is only allowed in all the residential zoning districts with a specific use permit. And then the specific use permit has conditions associated with it. It does say cooking facilities and guest rooms are not allowed. Individual guest occupancy is limited to no more than one month in any three month period in the downtown business and the mixed use districts. The number of guest rooms is limited to 12. In all other districts, the number of guest rooms is limited to six. So it does have conditions with the SUP for bed and breakfast in. The other lodging facility types like the hotel full service, hotel limited service, residence hotel, they are all allowed only in certain zoning districts. The limited service hotels and residence hotels are only allowed by with specific use permits. Overnight parking facility is not allowed in any of the districts actually. And trailer camp or RV park is only allowed in LI light industrial zoning district. So we definitely have to choose which zoning districts that use will be allowed and with what specific category, whether it's a SUP or permitted by right. It's shepherd. The thing, the reason the permit part that was attractive to me in Fredericksburg is it gives us an option periodically to say yes or no, not us, what a desiti, the majority of us. If we do a zoning change, it's there forever. It goes with the property and it doesn't matter how good the owner is or bad the owner is, how many offenses they've got. So that's why I was a little bit hesitant to just go ahead and jump in. I would prefer if we're at that juncture, I would prefer to not have it in the zoning ordinance, have it a permit that's applied for whatever annually, buy annually, whatever to have an opportunity for city managers to designate the director of development and community. Anyway, you know what I mean? To make that decision each time it comes up because that gives us an opportunity to say no to a quote on Marouy 1 or bad one, yes to one that follows the rules. And so we haven't established those rules, but it makes a lot of sense there. Ms. Thalmond, do you want to add to that? I actually have a question about distinguishing short-term rentals from a bed and breakfast. So we've talked a little bit about the different types like Mr. Shepard brought up. So how is a bed and breakfast different than an owner occupied or manager occupied short term rental? And in my mind, I don't think there is a difference if you're a bed and breakfast, you're renting that room or a couple of rooms on a short term basis with someone on site. So I feel like we already have ordinances that cover that and And I don't think we need to duplicate in this process. I think we can. My personal opinion, I don't know what you guys think is that this if we have a separate ordinance for short term rentals that should focus on non-owner occupied. Ms. Dopo. So bed and breakfast will require a specific use permit. For each site, and breakfast will require a specific use permit. For each site, the applicant will have to come and ask for a specific use permit. We'll go through planning and zoning commission and city council to get an approval for that. Okay, let's go back now to Mr. Shepard's proposal there. About it being a permit, that made a lot of sense I thought with what he rationed out there Mr. Parker So let me repeat if you're going to go down that path of allowing any portion of short-term rentals in this city, then it has to be, it has to start with the permingum process. And from wherever you go from that point forward, it's going to get muddier and muddier. Okay. I think that the common solution to the issue is going to be the presence of an owner on site that's going to even make this in any way shape or form acceptable to the neighborhoods. So a permitting process is a must if we're if we're going to go down this route. Okay, and that's as the information comes through it looks like we're moving towards a permit issue here. So everybody in agreement with that Miss Wolf. Would that be an annual permit? I'm I'm I'm it depends you know that's a great question because to be very honest with you if you're like I say if you're going to go down this road again you may have to have a third party individual who's going to monitor these things and it's going to cost the city to engage this third party. So that permit fee on an annual basis would be utilized to make sure that these STRs are within the guidelines that the city puts out. And that could also possibly I think what we saw last council meeting was some cities had 150 dollar annual fee somewhere 50, but you could probably start with that 150. Your second third if you've had no violation, you've been a good property owner that could be reduced perhaps, you know, as an incentive to? Well, I think that the fee should, I believe the fee should remain the same and the occupant or the SDR should drop out of the equation if they can't comply with the guidelines of the ordinance. The amount that you pay the third party is going to probably remain the same and maybe go up, it won't go down. So the bottom line is that the fee should remain the same and in the event that the applicant can't maintain proper decorum of their property, then they should drop off the bottom of the page. Make sense. Okay. All right, so we're moving down the route of an annual permit. Okay. All right. Mayor, if I can sort of summarize, make sure I understand that, based on what Mr. Shepherd was stating, that he's recommending a standalone ordinance with a permitting process for that. Yes. Yes. Okay. And an ordinance separate, a separate ordinance apart in a UDC, it's Miss Thalman suggested we may already have some parts of the kind of uses we're talking about regularly. Well, and I think that gives the hammer. Now we talked about the negative is you only have the $500 fine, but it gives a bigger hammer of pulling the permit. And you don't have it anymore. I think that's an even bigger hammer. Yeah, we, yeah, with it as Fredrick Spurg did they they have a method a mechanism for revoking the permit and not issuing another permit. If you've had your permit, revoked or suspended in the last year. So again, not saying we need to copy that order. So I'm just, you know, I think this is probably a good time too. We got a lot of people Tune in and so forth a lot of our audience here today was here the last time but We've got an overall theme here to try to protect our neighborhoods and and to protect personal property rights of everyone And that's what we're trying to work together here to come up with a fair ordinance that will do that. Okay. Mr. Bass any other clarifying things? No, sir unless I've missed a not on point so okay. Alright so just continue on with looking at some other elements if I understood correctly we're not going to involve the zoning aspect with this short-term rental permitting The next question would be is whether or not you allow or don't allow vacation rentals and those are unhosted short-term rentals Mr. Parker. The category that you have here under restrictions is owner occupied Reynolds. Okay. And I am totally against any aspect of short termals that do not offer owner occupied rentals. And that would make vacation rentals off the page. And in the event that the owner is at the rental, I can accept that in the events that they are not, I cannot, and I would not want one next to me. cannot and I would not want one next to me. Any other comments, questions, Ms. Thalman? I'm in supportive vacation rentals. So I know that we have a few around town, maybe quite a few in District one where we have noise and people parking on the street, but those issues are not specific to short term rentals. That happens in my neighborhood and every other neighborhood in Arlington, and I think that as a property owner and as a homeowner, we don't get to choose that who buys the home next to us or who long term rents that home next to us or who short term rents that. But there are a lot of things that the city already has in place to address those issues. and so to tell homeowners that you can't do what you want to with your property just because if you have issues, I'm not in support of that. Other comments? Mr. Parker. Well, I would say that that would not be the individual that writes me an email that would not be the individual that wants the sanctity of their neighborhood to be preserved. If in fact, you have that particular phenomenon occurring to you currently, then you have that particular phenomenon occurring to you currently. Then you have the right to go down and talk to that individual who probably either lives at the home or owns the home. I would say that currently what you have right now is the situation where the homeowner does not live at the home and rents, has vacation rentals. And I would ask how that's working for you now. Do you think that that is something that is satisfactory, that are, I mean, we're sitting here because we have an issue. And the issue is vacation rentals. And that seems to be the biggest problematic area of this entire ordinance that we're taking a look at. If you allow vacation rentals, what you're doing is you're saying that what we have right now is just okay. That's fine and we're gonna move it down the road. I personally believe that what we have right now is it working, it's gotten worse, it will get worse in the future, and that our constituents that put us in these chairs want an answer, and they want something done because of what is currently transpiring. And vacation rentals allowing those is not going to make it any better. Mr. Shepherd and then Dr. Myers. Mr. Parker, I totally agree with the first part of what you said. I totally disagree with the last part of what you said. The reason we're sitting here is because they've gotten worse. And we are responding to our constituents. When you first started your conversation a week ago, and we've all basically had the same agreement, the difficult issue is whose property rights are we talking about? And the neighbors, the people that live on the street all have property rights, whether you own your property or don't own your property. To Miss Thalman's point, when my kids were in Martin High School, no offense, Martin, go warriors, you know, I would have preferred that nobody went to high school that lived on my street. We had multiple parties every single weekend. And there wasn't a thing I could do about it other than go talk to the mom and dad, and obviously the mom and dad didn't care because they had parties the next time. And then we called the school district and then we called the football coach. Well, once we called the football coach party stop, but the point is it was self regulated. with the regulations we're have something we can do. Right now, I totally agree with you because of the weirdness of our ordinance, I wouldn't want to be the code guy that goes out there and tries to explain to these people why they can't do what they're doing because I can't show them. Once we get through with this, I think we will be able to show them. And I do believe we will cut down on the the bad actors. I think as it was pointed out, we have, I don't remember the number now, but it's like anything else. You know, 10% of the short-term rentals are, quote, bad actors. Well, 10% of the long-term rentals are bad actors. 10% of my neighbors are bad actors, 10% of all of our neighbors are. They don't mow their lawn, they don't put their recycled bin up. There's all kinds of things that we can complain about having parties into a whole industry by taking a giant sledgehammer and just saying, generalizing, saying all of you are bad, I think is inappropriate and I think it's inaccurate. I don't think that's what the citizens have asked us to do. The citizens have asked us to do the hard work, figure out how we can have these things peacefully coexist and be done with it. Dr. Myers. Not to blame at the point, but that was, you just ended where I was going to start, which is essentially the vacation rentals. If we do provide the single most reported instance in one as well as in other areas, has been not having the ability to have an individual within an hour show up and be there at the property. Having someone from outside the city own the property and neighbors having to try to deal with somebody outside the city has been difficult and we have seen throughout our town halls those operators of short-term rentals vacation rentals in percent per say who actually operate here who are here within an hour actually are doing what we would like to see. So what I would say is in interest, I would like to see us move forward and say, let's look at vacation rentals, let's look at balancing these property rights, and let's go forward and look at how we build in enforcement mechanisms like having someone within an hour be there. Because I agree with what the mayor says, that if this permit gives us the ability to draw back on what right now There is no recourse for our homeowners our homeowners have no recourse because we have no ordinance because we have no permitting because we have no enforcement So if we do provide that I think that's what really we can do today the sparker I Would I would beg the differ. you you you you you you you you I'm sure you're all right. I'm sure you're all right. I'm sure you're all right. I'm sure you're all right. I'm sure you're all right. I'm sure you're all right. I'm sure you're all right. I'm sure you're all right. I'm sure you're all right. I'm sure you're all right. I'm sure you're all right. I'm sure you're all right. I'm sure you're all right Hosted home sharing Are y'all sure about those? I mean well, we know we're not vacation rails. We've got that debate going on Okay, what about hosted or unhosted home sharing? Because I mean I know I've heard from one or two of you that that want to have in other words That means that the person would have to be there property owner would have to be there means that the person would have to be there. Property owner would have to be there. Bike, you wanna give that definition? I wanna just hit that one on that one. Sure. Hosted where the resident or principal operator of the home would have to be present during the guest visit, an unhosted home share would be, they would be allowed, let's say, 90 days per year to which they don't have to be present during a home share opportunity. the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing is that the most important thing Let's say other than the fact that you have to have a SUV to operate a bed and breakfast, but you don't need to have a permit to operate a hosted home share Could be level of food service Jim Paragion deputy-sea manager I'm very sorry. I'm very sorry. Yeah. Jim Paragion, Deputy Chief Manager. Now, it's a good question. I think there's a level of how the operation goes. So for a bed breffest, that typically operates like a commercial business. Whereas in a home sharing situation, it may be say a professor at UTA that has a very limited interest in doing that. So some of it's contextual. If I'm a bed and breakfast like the one on, I think Abram Street, where I'm set up as a business, I'm set up to operate as a business. That is what we consider a traditional bed and breakfast. A home share could be a situation where I've got, I'm an empty nester and I've got a room for NFL draft because I want to try it. They kind of represent two different things. It doesn't mean you couldn't interpret them together, but traditionally we have not interpreted those together. We've interpreted that bed and breakfast as a commercial business. And the other thing that could separate them is this list right here. There's a lot of things on this that could change it from what, such as the number of knots. Absolutely. That's where the scales sometimes in interpretation of zoning and use of property, the scale of how one operates and what type of activity and the extent of activity plays into how you interpret whether that is a use that fits this or this. Ms. Walman. I guess, of course, this is complicated at the best. But okay, Jim, when you talked about the occupy, the resident staying there while the guest is there, wouldn't that come come under because it sounds like this is somebody that owns a home and didn't we talk about that? If you own the homes, that's a whole different category. All right, how am I getting confused on this? The difference between homestead and a person who is in the home, who owns the home, what's the difference? Maybe I'm not making myself clear, but it's so typically in a home sharing situation, the principal residents who has been identified as the principal residents through a homestead, through tax returns, et cetera, who owns the home is living at the home while the guest is present. That's what I'm saying. So, wouldn't that mean how would you compare them to a to a, um, hmm, okay. I think I got it. Thank you. So hosted home share. It would be as if I were renting out my spare bedroom to somebody who's just here for the weekend, right? But I can rent that out to somebody long-term without any city government interference, right? Not interference, but regulation. Well, if it's on a short-term basis, I don't know that we need to regulate that. It's, you know, a city level. That's my example. And I just personally just tend to favor you in least restrictive path. But if we are seeing, I don't know if we can pull data, we probably should have asked for this ahead of time. But if we're seeing problems where we are having hosted short term rentals with parties and all these kind of things, maybe if that's data that we can pull, that would be helpful to have. I don't know if someone can grab that while we're meeting. Dr. Mars. And really not to be to, I hate to use the expression, not to revamp the same issue, but that's why I keep going back to the lodging facilities. Because if we leave bed and breakfast there as defined and we move to a short terminal separately, then essentially I come down to the same thing that Miss Salmon is coming down to, which is I don't understand why we would need to reach into a person's house if they're there. If they're it's owner occupied, I'm not sure why we need to do that. It's not vacation rentals. Let me think vacation rentals. What I can't wrap my head around and maybe you can tell me if I'm incorrect. Vacation rentals look like feel like like, more like a business to me. It acts more like a bread and breakfast to me. So I want it, that's why I really need to disentangle these two issues. So there you go. So that's really what I'm attempting to do, because I think if we disentangle those issues, I agree with you about the zoning. But I think if we disentangle these three issues, that's going to clarify the rest of what it is we're talking through. Mr. Shepherd so I think what we're struggling with is Mr. Parker had a proposal a week ago that essentially said if you don't live there and don't have a homestead exemption you can't Rent your property out on a short-term basis That's I know I'm condensing that quite a bit, but that's essentially what mr. Parker said. I don't know that I think what we're talking about now is do we agree with what I call the Parker plan? Because if we don't agree with the Parker plan, then I think to Yalls Point, we don't need to regulate home owner, occupied rental of any kind, short term, long term, mid term, if we don't agree with the Parker plan, if we agree with the Parker plan, then we can all go home because all the rest of this stuff is just noise that we're not going to deal with. So to me, the threshold question is, do we want to follow what Mr. Parker suggested and only limit short term rental, long term rental, whatever to owner occupied? Or do we want to have a vacation rental ordinance and leave the homeowner occupied thing alone and stay out of those people's homes? I think that's what's confusing things. Okay, comments or spots? What? Mr. Shepard said, Mr. Parker. I agree with that concept. And essentially, the crossroads that we're at right now, I think that the vacation rental is the chicken bone and the throat that I think most people have sitting at this dios. And so consequently, I don't care if it's tied to a homeowner's exemption or not. The homeowner's exemption just gives you an opportunity to find out if you actually own the home. But the bottom line is if you are in the home and you want to rent out a portion of it, the sticky part comes when you're not there. Because you don't have the ability to monitor the behavior of the applicants that you've accepted into your home or the home that you are trying to rent. And that is a huge issue when it comes to preserving the quality of our neighborhoods. And that is the prime directive that we're seeking to ensure here is that our neighborhoods have a good quality of life. So I think that the vacation rentals are the stumbling block that we are having a issue with as far as behavior of our tenants and how we go about it. The fact that you have somebody that is going to be there in an hour while the police are tasing people on your front lawn has very little to do with the quality of the rental. Because the degradation has already occurred. It's already happened. It's already cooked off. And so all the property owner who's going to do by the time he gets there in an hour is kind of move everybody out of the house so to speak so they can find other lodging for the evening. But that solves very few problems. And I would to think that these instances are few. If you take just in North Arlington itself and say that there's 70 homes in North Arlington and say it's rented for half or say 25 times a year, the opportunity to have an issue is extremely high. And if you take that particular number and 10% of that, and grant it, there are some families that want to come in here and simply enjoy the activities that we have here in Arlington. And I understand that. And they're law-biting and very respectful. And they do the things that are supposed to be done. But that's not the worst case scenario and that's not the issues that we're having in our neighborhoods. So I think that the owner occupied rentals or home share occupied rentals are the answer to this question because there's culpability to the neighbors and they have to comply with the desires of the neighborhood itself. So that's kind of where I'm at. Mr. Glass-Bank. Thank you, Mayor. To me, we saw what we're up against is the process of dealing with issues of problems that you have in the lack of a better way of putting stable neighborhoods. Is that sort of organic or natural things in place that you can resolve. You know who to go to, you know who to deal with and trying to come to some resolution with it. Whereas what we're talking about now is this dynamic, you really don't necessarily know how to do it. So I think we'll put in a position where we have to put some framework so that people will have some process of control and issues that come up. Well, and I see a bit of an evolution here and because when I left here in our last discussion, you know, the discussion was kind of turning and because when I left here in our last discussion, the discussion was kind of turning and Mr. Parker's proposal was that we needed to be owner occupied, home state exemption, and then there was some talk about it. If you lived there that you could rent out the one next door or on your premise. But now, Mr. Parker, I see that you feel like you need to take it another step that they have to be there when that property is rented. I got an email this week and it was kind of an interesting email because it had the premise of, well, if you live next door, what about two houses over or three houses over or around the block on the other side? And I just started to see it deteriorate, okay? And if you draw your fangs back and say, okay, the adjacency clause is essentially unacceptable because there's going gonna be so many people that are gonna try to make an exception of those particular areas. So in my way of thinking, okay, if you had a home set exemption on the property, okay? It's the property that you could rent on. If you have a mother-in-law house behind you, if you had something that is an actual structure that you could rent be a code, then consequently it would be acceptable. And I think the homestead exemption is just a vehicle to utilize the ownership and say that if you were actually paying taxes on that property, then you have and occupy that property, then that's the ability to go ahead and rent a short term. If you're paying taxes on the property and don't live there, then you have the ability to rent it for a month or more. So that's kind of where I'm at. That's where I've gone as far as the emails I've received this week. And I've kind of taken a look at the adjacency aspect of it. And it simply doesn't work because of the logic behind it. People will try to stretch it out to living on the block or living in the zip code or living in the county or whatever. OK, so anyway, that being the case, I think it's a stretch. Okay, other comments? Miss K-Port. Thank you, Mayor. I think we all agree that this is difficult. Some of the real concerns that I have are dealing with the cost back to the city, particularly with regard to code. And Mr. City Manager, I think we will probably all agree that you're gonna need more code enforcement people in the next budget cycle. I think with the permitting is probably the most logical step on an annual basis. There are arguments on both sides. Is it a bed and breakfast? Is it a vacation rental? You can't control who moves in next to you. And I get all of that. And while I can't control who buys or rents the house next to me, at least I know they're probably going to be there more than just a weekend. And they're going to have to live in that neighborhood and find a way to integrate themselves into a neighborhood. In a short-term rental basis, that's not the case. They're there. They're having a good time, and then they're gone, and the neighborhood may have to deal with that same issue the very next weekend or the very next day. I think there's jeopardy to neighborhoods in that case. It's not the same as renting the house or buying the house. And it's really not necessarily the same as in my head of bed and breakfast because of bed and breakfast is designated as a commercial property and it's not necessarily going to set up in a neighborhood. But having said that, you know, if I want to run out my bedroom, extra bedroom for a weekend, I'm there and I know my neighbors. And they can complain if I go shopping and my guest creates a disturbance, they're going to come to me. And I'm going to have to answer to that. I think there's more accountability in those regards than if it's someone who's not close by. But there are needs. And the thing I fear probably the most is that if we try to ignore the problem and not do anything and just let it ride, or if we try to regulate and it drives them underground, they're going to do it anyway. And then there's very little we can do to help the neighborhoods. So some of the things that I think to me makes sense is the permitting. So we know where these things are. The hot tax I think is leveling the playing field because the other thing we have to be concerned about is our hoteliers. And some of what I'm hearing from them is we have many regulations we're paying, they're not, just because they say they're not a business, they are a business and they are. I mean this is a business in a neighborhood, anyway you cut it. So one of the things that I'd like us to consider is that if you are going to have a short-term rental in the city of Arlington, you have to live in the city of Arlington. We're having a lot of people buying up these properties and turning them into short term rentals. They may not even live in the state, little on in the city. There's got to be a way where there's more of an accountability process. And if you own that short term rental, I think that needs to be posted in that short term rental, who that owner is. And so the neighborhood also knows where they can go. And you gotta be close by. And close by doesn't mean Dallas. Close by doesn't mean Frisco. Close by means you need to be in Arlington. You need to be paying taxes in Arlington in my head. To me that just drives more accountability and more of an investment in the community. But I do get concerned about the safety aspects, and this kind of comes back around to how much of this are we really going to know about. And it comes back to our hoteliers who have all these safety things that they have to do. And you have these short-term rentals set up, and so someone comes to our city and they're staying in a house, it doesn't have a fire alarm or they're staying in a house, it has poor water or they're staying. Whatever, I mean how much of how far into this do we go to make sure that the playing field is level, that you've protected your neighborhoods and those people that are coming and staying in your community, and they may be here just one time, that they have had a safe experience while they're here. Those are my concerns. I don't know if I've answered any questions, more than bringing up concerns. But this discussion is, I think we have to start somewhere knowing full well, wherever we start. It's not going to it's not going to be the end of this discussion. But North Arlington particularly is suffering and I don't think we can wait any longer to do something knowing full well whatever we do is probably not the last change we're going to make to this. Yeah I think that's whatever we do is probably not the last change we're going to make to this. Yeah, I think that's exactly right because we'll have experience after we put an ordinance in place and right now we've already seen that we are silent on this issue and we've got to come in with something. I think that's a great point that we need to move ahead on this. Mr. Parker. I totally agree. I assure you that with the things that you've stated, my concern would be that in an effort to try to become a citizen of Arlington that somebody would rent an apartment here and use an address here and also be in business in the short-term rental community by getting by that particular aspect of your concern. That, anyone can, if they have say, you know, seven or 10 houses or however many houses they have here that they're running a short term rental, get a post office box, okay, and or a rent an apartment in an effort to try to have a business that has an address here. And therefore, I think that the there are ways to get around the residency of Arlington that are frankly quite easy to do. So that would be that would be although I can I agree with everything you said that would be my concern on the residency aspect. OK, Ms. Walman, Ms. Cape Martin. OK. I've heard everything you said about the Arlington residency. And you gave a lot of scenarios about how to get around it. And I guess people really do. Maybe they spend that much time trying to figure out how to get around everything. But also, we have people here that do business here and own businesses here, but they don't live here. We already have that in the city. I mean there are a lot of people living. I'll just take the WG Pantigo, Kennedale, cities that are right in our city and they have their businesses in Arlington. So there are scenarios of that also. I agree that I think I agree to probably more with Mr. Shepherd about the fact that there are three different types. And the one where you own your home and if your home's dead and you live there all your life or whatever, and you wanna do something with your property, a personal property rights, I would say, has precedents over that, and that should be a permit, okay? If you wanna designate, this is what I'm doing, but they will be there, they will rent their home, and that's probably their right to do that. The other is a business and I think we've all known that from the start. This is a business and it has to have all our other businesses also have regulations and ordinances that pertain to how they open their business. You've got to have a CO. You can't just walk in here and open up a business. So we have ordinances for them and that's what I really would like to continue to look at is the possibility of how do we, and how stringent do we make this ordinance that are of this permitting process that we're going to have? We've looked at this list, and I've gone through them, and there are a lot of them that I agree with, and some I don't. So I think that's where it'll come down to for me is when we get to that point and say, this is how stringent it's gonna be and how we wanna protect our citizens as they go through this. So that's sort of where I am. This is K-4. Thank you, Mayor. And Mr. Parker, I agree that there are ways around it. And again, it might be just a starting point. And Ms. Wildman, I agree that we have business owners who don't live here, but those business owners aren't setting up businesses and neighborhoods. And so this is a different animal than just a typical business. This is something that you're taking a property and turning it into a business. So we don't allow hotels and motels and all of that to set up at neighborhoods, but you're basically allowing that with an STR. So I don't think the standard applies to STRs, I think because it's unique, we have to come up with some kind of uniqueness about it. And if living in Arlington is not the uniqueness, okay, but it's going to have to be something. Because the entire premise of what an STR is, is a totally different animal of anything we've done. The potential to a road in neighborhood is significant and that doesn't exist with any other Commercial property that I can think of because we regulate where they can be But you're basically allowing and condoning a commercial business to set up in a neighborhood and That's that's maybe and some people's minds. That's my property right because I own my home But I didn't buy my home to have the home next door to me turn into a commercial business. And so who's property and who's right? And I think that's the dilemma that we're all facing. And so you want to do something that's fair and protects both. I get it. And I don't know what that answer is, guys. I wish I did. We wouldn't still be here, right? But we're working our way through it and I really think we have to find a starting point and all agree that's not going to be the final say. But we've got to do something to help those neighborhoods in North Arlington who are really, really taking it on the chin for the rest of the city right now. And I don't think we can continue to debate this too much longer without starting something. Ms. Walnut. I would also agree with that. But I think we have started, but I don't think we're through. That's what I'm saying. I don't think we're through. And yes, I understand that we want to protect our neighborhoods or one of our most valuable assets in the city or our neighborhoods. And we've always been there to protect them. And it's one of our top priorities for this council anyway, is to protect our neighborhoods and have strong neighborhoods. And I don't intend to hopefully erode our neighborhoods, but to make something fair. This, you know, you're right about it, it is a different animal, but it's new. And that's another thing. We haven't had this before, that obviously because we've been silent on it. We didn't even know we had them. Just say this, to say that, you know, so since we didn't know that, but I don't think that I don't want to just automatically walk in and say, no, no thought, no, nothing, just no. But I think there's some medium ground that will protect the neighborhoods, but possibly give some places in this city. I don't even know what I'm saying because I've read all these and I think it can be very, very restrictive or it can be very open but it depends on the also the type of city that you're living in and the city that we live in right now is what one of the largest entertainment venues in the state probably so we do have different we have what 14 million visitors that come here a year. That's a lot of this year. 2014. Oh, okay. Well, we'll up in a little later. But anyway, that's what I'm saying. We are a different city. This is a different issue and I just don't want to just go too quickly into it and drawing up something very quickly. That's all. I just want to say. Mr. Glashby. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Bass, I appreciate you facilitating this and the patience you've had in the last minute. I have sort of an off the side question. Those cities that are on this, what Fredrick Merrigan and Galveston, do you have any feel for what the drivers were for the input and theirs in place and kind of some of the results they're getting? I don't. I mean, I can attempt to determine through some contact there with the individuals to see. I think Fredrick's works was probably, Fredrick's work was probably overwhelmed. I mean, this is a recent adoption and they began to suffer from some of the impacts of the short-term rental and the impacts of the community. But I can definitely get that information. Going back to where we can see already that, you know, vacation rentals and home sharing versus unhosted home sharing. We have disagreements on. We sit there and look down at the rest of the items, I think we can come to agreement on some of these. And I don't, like I say, I don't know which ones, but for lack, I'll just step out there and y'all can disagree, but I just went down the list myself. And there's some I have questions on, but I think it's paramount that we put a cap on number of SDR citywide. I think that you cannot just say it's going to go up. I think we have to put a cap on that. And then also the same way I just don't think we can... I think if someone rented out their place all the time too, I think a cap rented out their place all the time too, I think a cap on number of nights, you know, they're the third one is a critical one for us to do overall. Is that, you know, feel good about that? And I know if we'll totally eliminate it, Charlie, we'll know this mute, that's a cap. That's a cap for sure. And then I think we've already talked about the next one, the annual registration and permit required. Yes, we settled that one and that would also be an annual fee. I think we need to come back to CO required and safety devices there because I think that's one that I would love for Mike Y Michael to look a little bit at on what other cities are doing there on that but it does go along we've already heard from council that we do want to do a we don't want to just let it go you know we're gonna have to have a third party perhaps out there Miss Wauman. Mayor is are you talking about for owner, homestead, occupied, that they would have to have a CO requirement to? Well, it depends on it. That's for us to put a question mark. Okay. We don't have an answer for that. Okay. Good. Because I didn't have one on that. I've got a question on CO required. I've also got a question on safety devices. I don't think we can say that because we got other decisions to make. Plus, I think it goes back to what is this third party. And it's very different if we go strictly owner occupied than it is if they're not owner occupied. But you know also on the fire extinguishers, the smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, the fire department goes through and they make offers all the time for homes. Is that not correct? To check them and to see if you have them. So you just got into all kinds of questions. I don't think I can answer them. I think we're all day just on that one. And then we want to collect hotel occupancy tax, right? And then consequences for complaints filed. Yes. And then city issued permit number posted on all advertisements in hosting platforms. Yes. That sounds reasonable. And then you see the parking restriction on-site only well. I think that's critical that we have a total number. I think we need to say no on the first one, but yes on the next one. Because if we don't go beyond the onsite, we could hurt that. That's a very thing we could hurt the neighbor. You know, Mr. Parker has listed that deal. You have cars lined up the whole street. You know, if you don't put a restriction on how many cars they can have there with it. And go ahead, Mr. Shepherd. And this touches on something I mentioned last week. And I don't know what the answer is here either. You know, the third one talks about physical conversion of residential property. The transient use is not allowed. The second one talks about a suggestion of one space per bedroom. A five bedroom house, if you're going to provide five parking spaces on site, then you have to do number three. And my idea was to limit the parking on site and not allow them to do any physical conversion. So, you know, there may be a two-car garage and you can get two other cars behind it, for example. And a lot of our homes, that's kind of the way parking is. Sometimes you've got parking around backs with those J-Swings and they may be able to accommodate more cars, but as long as you can, in my opinion, put it on site, not on the street and not build a parking lot in the front yard, I think that's what we ought to be thinking. I couldn't agree more. I think you summarized it so well there because we do not want to have a concrete parking lot in the front yard. But however, if the house is artist, some have longer driveways or whatever, but even the next one down the maximum occupancy, I think that feeds right into that also. Those kind of go hand in hand, but they can even make arrangements. They may be, hey, you want to be sure and get a suburban and not have six cars, you know, when you're traveling there Because you want to have the parking being accommodated within the residents there local contact available 24 hours per day. Yes That's kind of a we've all talked about that Notified joining property owners and provide local contact information. Yes. Yes, ma'am. Could you go back to that maximum occupancy? I see where Fort Worth has won for some reason. I'm thinking Fort Worth has a maximum occupancy of 12. Can you verify that? Are you speaking to residential zone districts? Or are you speaking to the Ben Briggs? I'm saying four. No, I'm just saying four words. Short term rentals. Short term rentals. Maximum occupancy. Yeah. You got four worth checked. And somehow I have a note that says four worth has a maximum of 12. Three maximum of three guest rooms with no more than three occupants per guest room. Total of maximum of nine guests per night. It doesn't indicate typically with regards to the other ordinances, they only count the adults and they don't count the children. I guess that's how we would have to define what a yeah. Because I could support a maximum of 12. Occupants. occupants. Yeah. Yes, Ms. Parker. Well, I would take issue with 12 people moving into a three bedroom home that is in a residential area. I believe that the number of bedrooms that the home has not to include a converted garage or something that's been sectioned out into two different bedrooms in the garage or something out in nature. Whatever the home is established as bedrooms, say a three bedroom would be two times the number of bedrooms plus two. So that would be a three bedroom would be eight people. And I guess I was just coming from two adults, two people per bedroom plus one. So if the average half is a four bedroom house, that would be your maximum 12. Yeah, I would, if you had a maximum of 12 and say a three bedroom house on one of our residential streets, it would be problematic, I think. Let's restate it, Rob. Yeah, I think we're saying something different. I think it is two per bedroom, plus whatever, not to exceed some number of total occupants. Which I think. So, in other words, let's just do your scenario there, Charlie, that you had two per three. So that'd be six plus either one or two, depending on what we did. So then that would be a maximum of seven or eight that you could have in that eight in that house. Which would include kids, because most of the ordinances at least as I recall, talk about it adults. Two adults per bedroom plus two adults. So in your scenario of a three bedroom, if we were to agree to that, that would allow you to have eight adults in 75 kids. I mean, those are crazy adults to have that many kids, but just to be absurd about it. So I think Miss Wolf's idea was to limit the total occupancy, which would include kids' periods. So a not-to-exceed thing. Well, I would consider a child, a carbon-based unit, that is also a human being that lives on this planet. So consequently, you can have two plus, the number of bedrooms plus two, carbon-based units in your particular establishment. Okay, and I don't care if they're kids, you know, or whatever, but it seems to me that, you know, I know what you're saying that people will try to scoot the definition of what the occupancy is, but I think if you utilize people instead of adults, you would be just fine. Mr. Glaspie. Just trying to get a clarification on what. So you're saying the total number is 12 regardless of how many rooms they might have. And then within that, we'd base it on the number of rooms plus a person. Yeah. And then it wouldn't matter the age. It wouldn't matter the age. Missed them. So just to clarify, so then if you had a five bedroom house, you could still only have 12, a maximum of 12 people. I don't know, to me, that doesn't make sense. If you have a five bedroom house, versus a two bedroom house or a three bedroom house. So, in a three bedroom, you would have six people plus two, so eight and the 12 is, I mean, it's a maximum of 12, but that doesn't really apply because you could really only have eight. Is that what we're saying? Yeah, it's very dependent on the bedrooms you have. Okay. Okay, I see. So I have many bedrooms you have, would be how many you would have, but you could never say if you had six or seven bedrooms you still would never get over 12 and that's to try to protect the overflow out into the neighborhood. Okay all right then we had gotten down to, we did say notified, joining property ownership, provide local contact information. Yes. Required gifts to receive written notification. Yes. Limit types of events. Yes. And we, I know we're gonna have to define that. There we have that worked. Robert, me, I would say eliminate to be honest with you. If we, to me, we move from vacation rental to party house as it's been called, if we're going to talk about vacation rentals, I think we should limit it to vacation rental. I don't want the vacation rental. Yeah, I don't want the fraternity from UT as Mr. Parker suggested coming in and renting one of these homes on Texas OU weekend and having 75 kids there. It certainly exceeds the maximum, but to Mr. Parker's point, it's the damage is done. So if we're talking about families coming in with children that are going to our entertainment venues, fantastic. So to me, I would be fine with just eliminating any type of event, but that's me. Any type of event, eliminating event? I think what we're saying is kind of like no special event. And then outdoor assembly curfew, yes. And then noise restrictions, yes. And I didn't, I will say this, it kind of surprised me the decibel deal to me that 10 o'clock is a very key time to have the decibel level to be low from 6 to 10 towards lower than during the daytime. That one didn't quite deal. If we can do some work on that because I think it's kind of, in our neighborhood, it's kind of a typical deal that we all you know watch that 10 o'clock if we're having a you know we're out in that pool and we got the music going well you know 10 we cut it down you know that kind of thing. It was Fredrick's birthday referred to in the in the the decibel level and you know the ambient level here, three miles from I-20 is probably higher than the ambient level in Fredericksburg at any time. So when some of the on their hearts barely beating in fact. Yeah, but it's kind of a way of saying so I think we I agree with you. I think we need to study it a little bit more, but I wouldn't be opposed to 10 o'clock curfew shut it down too bad, and that would include the small carbon units, not playing into pool and yelling and screaming. Okay, that gave a lot of direction. It still didn't get us over the two controversial ones, though, but with that, I think staff has some stuff that they can... Mike, do you have some things you can work on here and then maybe come with two alternatives? Well, yes, Mayor. That's kind of what I was thinking. We can bring back, say, some verbiage that is specific to vacation rentals and perhaps some verbiage that specific to just home share and then maybe a combination. And then that would be great. You can pick and choose from. I don't know if that's going to add more confusion. But I think that's the stick. I think we're down to two. They're major, but we are down to two major topics with the limiting that and that is whether we do vacation to their major, but we are down to two major topics with eliminating that and that is whether we do vacation rentals and then whether we limit strictly to home share. And then home share, there's a little bit to that. The other extraneous things, I know there's a lot of details there, but we move forward. Yes, Miss Wool. OK, and I think I just forgot what I was going to say. But I just wanted to clarify that on the Homeowner site that it would include if there was the guest house Mother and all that as long as it's on that same property Under that owner occupied we would need to define that so for example in some cities. They only allow For one or the other either the primary residence is utilized as a short term rental or the accessory unit is utilized, but both can't be used at the same time. Could the owner rent out their home and they stay in the mates' quarters for that weekend? Sure, I'm sure that you could do that. Sure. And again, that would be defined by y'all. Okay. I just want to just say that a homestead owner occupied may include that guest house or their maids quarters or that separate unit on that piece of property that's included in their tax assessment, et cetera. Mr. Glassby. Thank you, Mayor. Just back back up to what we were talking about. Vacation rules. Now do we take a definitive position on those and also on the cap on percentage of home view that we we indicated want to cap on the S. Yeah, we did hopefully the city Staff can work on what that cap would be compared to what we're seeing in other cities They're more going that camp And may or if I can just clarify Because I've heard so much on vacation rentals, but this is coming back with a Permitting process for vacation rentals, but not prohibiting vacation rentals. Is that correct? Well, that's the, it's both ways. Perhibit, you have to be determined. Perhibit vacation rentals, but definitely, if we had them, they would be permitting. I think everybody was in agreement. If we had them, they would have to be permitted. Okay any other addition any other direction here for staff? I don't want to give and I like your hybrid there because you know you would have one that prohibits vacation rentals. You would be one that allowed them under permitting, and then you would have another hybrid there of the home sharing without them being there. And then the other one, the vacation rentals takes it out anyway. Yes, Ms. Thalman. Thank you. So earlier Ms. K-Part mentioned the cost to the city, and one thing that we talked about in committee were some third party options that help with monitoring enforcement. They could even feel some of the complaints that we'd get. I know we're still kind of early in the process, but that might be a good time to bring in some of that information for us to look at how that process would work. Sure. I agree, I'm smiling at it. We just gave them a whole lot of work today. Am I right? Am I having total 2020? Is that correct? Yeah. Oh my goodness. Yeah, and I agree. We're going to need to do that. And that really, you know, we're not. Also, we don't care. We're not trying to make any money off of this. We just need to cover the cost to monitor it. That's all we're trying to do and to have a good process and a reasonable process for those that do it too. Is that true? Yes, that's right. Okay. I'm going to raise. I could do it. Yeah, let's try to. Yes. Be a fair equity there across the board. Okay. Any other comments? Mr. Yovrton, do you have anything to add or anything? Here. Okay. Yes, Ms. Wolf. And you know, we were just discussing here. I don't know how an Airbnb or any of those do it, but don't they have all kinds of additional fees and it would be interesting when we look at our ordinance and what that would cost them. What do those big industries? They always have all these little, and I'm thinking like like check out cheap pay extra something something something something but aren't there always caveats? The only portion of the industry that I'm familiar I believe 3% is typically the fee that they charge back to the host or they keep and then they remit the rest. I'm not aware of any other fees. I can look into it some more though. Okay, thank you. I would appreciate that. Okay, seeing no other business, we stand adjourned. Thank you to citizens that came out today. Appreciate y'all's concern. Thank you. you