26. >> Um, Matt, you want to call the role for the city council? >> Council member Bliss >> here. Council member Gilmore >> here. >> Council member Kip >> present. >> Council member Hill >> here. >> Mayor Hansen >> here. And then Sarah, please call the
role for the planning commission. >> Commissioner Sigfrey >> here. Commissioner Hyron >> here. >> Commissioner Da Roseby >> here. >> And Commissioner Chamberlain and Oaks are both absent this evening. Thanks. All right. We are here because we have um a public hearing. We have two public
hearings. Um the first is to consider a resolution approving an annexation of parcels owned by Baytown Lane Enterprises LLC. And Matt is going to present this item. >> Uh thank you, Madame Mayor, um members of the council and planning commission. Um this is actually more of a
housekeeping um item um that is a big housekeeping item um in terms of the process. So with the uh Baytown or the Bay Haven development um that Lan Pratt had pursued um there were obviously
annexations as part of that a significant number of them with the smaller parcels. Um during that process, two parcels were left off that annexation process. Um Sarah has the map up. Um Harrison, can you bring up the uh
click share? So the not the blue parcel way on the left but the two uh blue parcels on the right are the parcels that are identified for the current annexation. So, one of the parcels is from a street
vacation um for lot number 14 that occurred a significant number of years ago back in the 80s um when the uh communications tower was installed. So, lot 14 was
annexed into um the Bay Haven development. Um but that small parcel had different property description language um and was not included in that annexation. The other parcel is part of
the parcel gap um that was annexed in that was primarily annexed in during uh phase two of the Bay Haven development. But that parcel at that time was owned um by a
property owner who did not sign the petition for annexation in. So it's all a little confusing um but we are here now to clean it up. So um both parcels are currently owned by the same property owner now. Um the autos who currently
reside right next to those parcels there. Um they're really the only property owner left in that development area um except for the developer Len Pratt. So um the autos are in favor of this annexation.
What'll happen is once these get annexed, they will incorporate them into lot number 14 and it will be one parcel. So the county is making that requirement as both of those lots um do not meet current minimum standards um from a city
perspective. Uh so as part of the annexation process there's two ways to go about it. One is by t by petition one is by ordinance. Um the behav development was brought by petition to make things easier and
quicker. Um this annexation is being done by city ordinance. Um especially with cooperation from the current property owner and the parcel owners around it. Um so part of that process is
the um one city staff was authorized by um the city council to proceed with that process on June 1st. Um that includes a 30-day notice the property owners contiguous property owners in the area utility providers and Baytown by
certified US mail um and published notice of this public hearing. So public hearing held tonight with planning commission and city council. Uh before you is a draft resolution to extend the corporate limits of Bayport
to include these parcels. Um as well as an ordinance adopting the annexation for the planning commission and council consideration. Um once this passes or is adopted, uh city staff will forward um the
resolution on to the office administrative hearings for final approval. Uh at this time, staff recommends the planning commission provide a recommendation and that the city council consider the recommendation and adopt a motion um for the
annexation. >> Right. Stand for questions. >> Thanks, Matt. I think first we have to do the public hearing before we have questions, right? Um, so I will open the public hearing and seeing that no one's here, I'll ask for a motion to close it
from one of the planning commission members. >> Yeah, I um I uh make a motion to move to close the public hearing. >> Thanks, Colleen. There's a second >> Thanks, Hal. All in favor?
>> I >> I think it's just them that vote. All right, great. And then um if there's any discussion uh we could start with again we'll start with planning commission since they would typically have uh their discussion first. Do you guys have any questions or
comments about what Matt has presented or what you saw in the packet? >> I I think it's straightforward and just cleaning it up. So I think it's >> in line with what we're supposed to do.
>> Okay. council. Any discussion? >> The blue I mean on the left. Are there actually houses in any of those spots that are being annexed in? Like I'm not >> Those aren't annexed in. Those are just blue for some reason. >> That's just blue. Oh >> yeah, that's It is kind of confusing. I
wish it wasn't all blue, but I was like, "Oh, we're taking over." >> Oh gosh. >> No Baytown, we're not. Don't get scared. >> Yeah, I was confused about that. >> No plans for that. Okay. Thanks for clarifying that because someone else probably thought the same thing even though he did say it in the beginning
but >> yeah it looks the same. >> Okay. Anyone else have any questions or comments? >> No. >> All right then. Um a motion. >> Um >> now this would be a
>> Yes. Now you would the planning commission Yeah. >> makes the recommendation. >> Yep. Yep. >> Thank you. Um, I move to recommend approval of the resolution extending the corporate limits of the city to include certain uninccorporated land from
Baytown Township as just described owned by Baytown Lane Enterprises LLC. >> Thanks, Colleen. A second. >> A second. >> Hella. >> All right. Thank you. And then Sarah, do you want to take role for the planning commission, please?
>> Yes. Commissioner Sigfrieded. I >> Hyron >> I >> Taylor Roseby >> I >> Isol. >> All right. Do we have a motion from the city council? >> I move to adopt the resolution just presented by the planning commission. >> Perfect. Thank you. Carl, do we have a
second? >> Second. >> Thanks, Ethan. Take role, please. Matt. >> Council member Bliss. >> I. >> Council member Gilmore. >> I. >> Council member Kip. >> I. >> Council member Hill. >> I. >> Mayor Hansen. >> I. All right. Now we have to move on to
just adopt this as an ordinance. If the planning commission would like to make a motion to do that, that would be great. >> Amended. >> Yeah. Um I move to recommend approval of an ordinance amending appendix B zoning
section 10 of the Bayport City Council Code of ordinances to record the annexation and zone the properties upon annexation. >> Thank you, Colleen. Second >> and Hal's doing his job is seconding.
Great. All right. Roll call. >> Commissioner Sig Freed >> I. >> Hyron >> I. >> Da Roseby >> I. >> Isol. >> All right. City council. Would you like to make a motion adopting that ordinance?
>> I move to adopt the ordinance that council me or that planning commission just moved. >> All right. Thanks, Katie. Thank you, Orin. Roll call, please. Matt. M. Council member Gilmar. >> I. >> Council member Bliss. >> I. >> Council member Kip. >> I. >> Council member Hill.
>> I. >> Mayor Hansen. >> I. Great. Got that. Cleaned up. Awesome. Uh, the second public hearing is to consider an amendment to appendix B zoning of the Bayport City Code of Ordinances related to regulations for
bed and breakfast residences. And this is going to be Sarah. Madame mayor, members of the council, and members of the planning commission, uh, last year the city received a resident inquiry regarding the operation of bed and breakfast establishment at a
residential property. Currently, the city does not have an ordinance for regulating this type of use, which means it is prohibited. With the increase in interest of people seeking vacation rentals and lack of accommodations in the city, the city council held workshop discussions on January 5th and February
2nd to discuss whether to pursue adoption of an ordinance to allow and regulate these type of establishments. Following those discussions, staff was directed to work with the city attorney to prepare a draft ordinance which was included in your agenda packet for tonight's meeting. The ordinance
includes provisions for license requirements, eligibility criteria, quantity of licenses available in the city, uh the application and approval process, and finally enforcement procedures. U most of these provisions were modeled after the city short-term
rental ordinance andor suggestions by the city council. Other content was drafted to be consistent with state definitions and regulations for bed and breakfast. At this time, the city attorney and staff will stand for questions. Uh, tonight, the planning commission and city council are asked to
provide direction to staff on the content of the draft ordinance, which will then be considered for final adoption by the city council at a future meeting. >> Great. Thank you, Sarah. Welcome. >> Um, I will open the public hearing and seeing no public here, ask for a motion
to close the public hearing from a planning commissioner. >> I move to close the public hearing. >> Second. Thank you, Colleen and Hal. Um, all in favor? >> I. >> Okay, great.
So, now, um, we can discuss again start with commissioners if you have any questions or feedback about the or I would like to just start by saying, nice job s of taking in all of our recommendations and notes. I know that
takes some work to put all this together and also making sure it kind of jives with the STR ordinance and state ordinances and all those things. So, thank you. >> Thank you. I do have a few things that I sent you that I will bring up here if there we need resolution on them, but commissioners, did you have questions or
comments about the >> Go ahead, Hal. >> Yeah. Um, thank you. So, with the guidelines as it relates to uh vetting, safety codes, monitoring potential violations, um is the city in a place right now that say we had up to 10 of
these. Do they feel comfortable with their current resources being able to help do all these processes or do they see themselves as needing additional support if if this were to continue? Do you want to take that? >> Um, Commissioner Da Roseby, um, that might be a better question for the
police department as they would be the ones responding. But as far as the short-term rental um, ordinance, which is the most similar comparison, I would say we have had a couple of instances and most of those issues were resolved with a conversation and an opportunity
to educate them on what was allowed in the ordinance. um and and then their license requirements. So, I I think at this point um we are sufficiently staffed and prepared to address any issues. Um but we'll have to wait and see how this goes.
>> Great. >> So, one other comment to that, Commissioner. Um part of that is there are other um county and state departments that do have regulations in there and so we do
have you know limited um number of items that we would be regulating. So um maybe on the front end as far as the call coming here um with questions about you know certain standards um from that perspective yeah
I do believe we have enough staff. Great. Thank you. >> Good question. Anybody else? >> I just I just wanted to know. So, this is a separate ordinance. So, how many So, we're saying no more than 10, but
how many VBO licenses are there? I mean, it's a separate thing, right? So, you could have I'm I'm just wondering. >> Is it 10 also? Okay. >> I believe so. I have the ordinance here. I can double check that just to make sure, but I believe it is 10.
>> Sounds right. >> And I mean, I don't know. I feel like it seems like a lot for Bayport, but >> you know what I mean? >> I don't know. >> But you guys had a session and talked about
>> Yeah. I don't know. Did we talk about the number? I don't know if we did. >> I don't remember it coming up. Did we? And we said, "Madam, what we picked?" >> I think the direction to staff was to model this um after short-term rental ordinance. So, that's I think where that number came from. If the planning commission or council feel
that that's maybe too many to start off or >> um just let us know. This is more of a conversation here and discussion tonight to to I guess this is the first time the planning commission has seen this draft ordinance. So, >> having this joint meeting is a good opportunity for the council to explain
some of that direction and where some of those requirements um were recommended. I I I that was my only thing that I just thought you guys should maybe talk about it and why you chose 10 and you want 10
in addition to the VBO stuff at 10. >> I guess to that end my question would be is there a separate ordinance that deals with a VBO >> separate from this? Right. Because with a VBO you're typically not talking about >> providing a meal or living on site.
Right. Correct. >> Correct. Does anybody recall the discussion around the number of them? Because I obviously didn't remember it. So, madam mayor, if I can comment on that, >> I I do think that there was part of that conversation that indicated that this
would probably be self-regulating. Also, there are definitely a very number of limited houses in town that have the capacity to be a bed and breakfast, right? Um it just so happens that one of them had inquired about 9 months ago um
to have this option in town. So um I think that that will definitely play a role um in the ability for and I don't foresee excuse me us ever reaching that 10 licenses. >> So
>> I don't either but there is >> I don't either but why make it that is my point. >> Yeah. I mean that's >> just a discussion for you. >> It is worth discussing. I I agree, Colleen. And I'd be fine if it were five because I can't even see us getting to five. But that's up for everybody can,
you know, just weigh in. I don't >> Yeah, based on our like you said, the housing that's available to do that like we're not a Still Water and we're not as big and we don't have all the you know the different houses. But so that was that was my only comment.
>> Okay. So, madame mayor, if there is consensus to reduce that, please let us know because now would be the time that we can incorporate that in there. >> Okay. >> So, if there's consensus that it's five, four, three. >> That's from council. Do you >> What does the city get for applications
for the short-term rentals? >> It's 10 also. >> Oh gosh. No. >> We currently have one or two. >> Four. >> 10 is the number of potential, >> right? I'm just curious how many people have actually inquired. >> Yeah. >> Three or four we currently Well, we've had more inquiries, but that's how many
we actually have is just >> Is it four? Do you remember, Sarah? Or three? >> There's been a couple that are having trouble passing some of the county requirements. So, I would say they're in process, but that would be the ones included in four. >> Okay.
>> I mean, if you look at Still Water, what Stillwater is 17,000 people >> roughly. How many hotel rooms and VBOS's do they have? Hundreds of rooms. We have zero besides the three short-term rentals we have. So, I don't see a problem with it being at 10. Like you
said, we're probably not going to get there anyways, but I hate to put it at five and all of a sudden we're back here two years from now having to change it, wasting a bunch of people's time and money to go back and change it. So, I'd leave it at 10. >> That's my opinion. >> Just point of clarification that the
council currently has the authority to essentially go above that number if you want to. >> Okay. Right. >> So, sort of a guideline, not really a Oh, okay. >> Oh, you're saying the way that we would be writing this ordinance, it was not a hard and fast number. >> The way that you wrote it, it is not.
>> So, if we got to five and somebody wanted to do a sixth one, then that'd be up to us at that point. >> Yes. It says the city council has authority to grant a special exemption from the number. >> Okay. >> Does anyone feel strongly about this in either direction?
>> I would leave it. >> Yeah, I would leave it too. I'm >> I'm good with leaving it, too. How How about commissioners? Are you feeling okay if we just left it or do you feel strongly that we should reduce it? >> Everyone's good. Okay. All right. Any um Bob, did you have any comments or
questions? >> Uh no. No. Okay. >> All right. All right. On to any um council discussion. Anyone have anything? >> No. It looks really nice. >> Yeah.
Okay. I um I did send just a few questions to to Matt and then I think Sarah probably answered them, but I always go through Matt just to be official. Um I just kind of wanted to better understand the definition of a short-term rental. How many days? Because this is defined
um as a nightly basis for less than one week. That's what makes this a bed and breakfast versus a short-term rental is a stay that's less than 30 days. So there's kind of now I'm looking at there's could be overlap but I think bed and breakfastes are obviously different
as pointed out. One serves food and hosts while the other other one doesn't necessarily do that. Um so I just kind of wanted to make sure that was clear and I guess that is the way it's defined in statute. So that's why we have it defined that way in case anyone was curious. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Okay. And then um let's see she's going to fix capitalization of city council. Oh, there is a line in 748.03 to see that I had
um just a question about cuz I wasn't sure. Okay, where is that now? Let me find it. 748.03 number 2C. So it says um guest >> 749 or 748 >> 748 guests units shall have unobstructed
access from the interior of the principal residential structure at all times accessory structure and I just didn't know where it was where they were having unobstructed access to. I felt like where there should be something filled in there. Um, and the
answer is from the guest unit to the rest of the house. So that there isn't like a separate entrance for the guests only that they have to be able to have access to the main part of the house. I'm not sure if you all thought that was clear, but it wasn't clear when I read it. So, I don't know if we need to add
guest unit shall have is this the way it's written in the short-term rental, too? Like, do we have this line in there? Feels familiar. Something about unobstructed access in that one, too. So, I'm sure it you probably borrowed it from there, but >> Yes,
>> it is. And it's written the same way. >> Very similar. Yes. >> How can you is it read it? >> Open unblocked interior access to a short-term rental dwelling area within the property within property owner occupied single family dwellings. So,
>> it's saying that they can't just have access to their one area or one bedroom that they're using. They need to have access. In essence, what this is trying to do is prevent it from becoming like a duplex or a separate accessory unit where it's
self-contained as more of like a hotel motel situation. It's that you're a guest staying in the house and everybody should be um be able to access the common areas. >> Okay. And is it like a fire safety thing too? Like in case something happens,
they can get out in another direction or we don't really know. It's just more about >> Yes. And I would guess that probably help with that, but I can work with the city attorney to craft some language that maybe makes that a little more clear. Okay. It's more of a zoning issue, not creating multiple dwelling
units on one site and having duplexes and triplexes. Essentially, that's how they would operate if they didn't have interior access. >> Okay, that makes sense. So, yeah, if you just want to make could make it more clear, that would be great. I don't really have any recommendation for exactly how to word that. I'm not sure
there's any house that has this, but like if somebody had a carriage house and they were doing the bed and breakfast there, does that >> they can't because it says accessory structure guest units are prohibited and that would be that, right? >> I don't think there's really any houses that have that, but I was thinking of
it. >> Yeah. And I I don't object to how that one's written. Um, so 748.032F Property must be occupied. Wait. Oh, yeah. Property must be occupied by the property owner or manager/operator
at all times during use as a bed and breakfast residence. And I just kind of thought that could be a little clearer because it sounds like they can never leave the building. So, I thought maybe we could change I did have a suggestion for wording on that one. during all
operational hours of the bed and breakfast instead of during all times during all during use as a bed and breakfast. Just so I sent that to Sarah. So if you guys would all agree with that change, I think she would make that. >> What are non-operational hours for a bed
and breakfast? >> Well, like maybe they're closed on Mondays and Tuesdays, then they don't have to be there during Monday and you know what I mean? I just felt like it seemed a little >> we could be clearer. So
>> I have a question to that end. I mean up way up on top under 74802 >> Mhm. >> under definitions it talks about bed and breakfast residence in the last sentence talks about the operator lives on the premises. >> Yeah, they live there but it's saying
that they have to be there all t all the time like >> No, it's saying they have to be it's occupied. That's not what you think. >> No, the F1 is saying >> I'm not saying that either. >> You don't read it that way. >> No, I read it as >> I don't either. >> Oh, I do. >> No, it has to be the resident.
>> It doesn't mean that they're certainly target. >> I read it as very I mean I didn't I know we didn't intend it to be restrictive, but I think someone could interpret it to be restrictive. >> I mean, if somebody interpreted that that way, they would be incorrect. That's not
>> Okay. So, you're saying there's no need to change it? >> I wouldn't because I think it makes it more confusing. Occupied just means that they have to reside there. >> What about their dual? >> Oh, you're saying occupied meaning live
there, not like just be there. >> H. Okay. I mean, I interpreted it to be too restrictive. So, I guess there could be more people like me, but you're saying that no matter what, we would not have to worry about it. So, that's fine with
me. I don't want to make changes. I just want to make sure we're clear. >> How about G there? No more than the equivalent of two full-time persons shall be employed. Like, why? I mean, why? >> I read that because I was thinking about the parking. I figured that's why we did that because we didn't want to have two
more than two people parking at this place all the time. But I thought maybe that was our way around kind of some of the worries about parking. But maybe I'm wrong on that. >> I mean, it'd be pretty hard to equivalent of two full-times. You could
have four people work 10 hours a week or 10 hours a week. So that's probably no big deal. I don't think it's going to be down there like, "Hey, wouldn't you work this week?" >> So what is the thinking behind having that though? Maybe you that would help us. >> Madame Mayor, I think part of it is that we want the property owner to be the one
running the property essentially, right? Um just because we we just talked about it being occupied by the property owner doesn't mean that then they couldn't be gone for weeks on end. And so I believe that part played part of a role. Part of this is also taken, I think, from a
couple of other ordinances that had very similar language there. Would the property owner count as a full-time employee or that would be separate? >> So, whatever the property owner does doesn't count, correct? That does not count. >> Okay. So, then that's fine. >> And I think we worded it where the owner
doesn't necessarily have to reside there, but a >> or a manager, >> an agent of the >> of the owner does, >> which would be one of the >> fulltime >> employees, I would assume. >> Okay. My I also had 74804
number seven. I had a comment there. >> Number seven, >> college RA again living at a living breakfast. >> You were an RA, too. I was um okay. So, this is guest disclosure. The property must have a disclosure posted in a
prominent place that lists the items noted above and any other regulations required by the property owner. I just was wondering if those are the things we really need to have highlighted in a disclosure. It seemed like a couple of them probably
didn't need to be like does the guest need to know about the signage and advertising policies? I don't know. I just wanted us to kind of discuss that and how you felt about what the property owner has to disclose in writing.
So, and post it at their place. So, it's saying it should be items one through six basically if I'm reading that correctly. I mean, I get occupancy, minimum age, quiet hours, outdoor use. So, they know that
signage, I don't know, like and advertising. Do they need to have that posted? It >> does say property must have posted in a prominent place that list items noted above. >> Yeah. So, I didn't know if you guys are okay with all of those things having to
be posted. >> Madame Mayor, I can specify the things that we want the guests to know about. I think number eight, parking is important. So, I'll just reorder that and specify which items. >> Wonderful. >> What do we think those are? >> Yeah. Yeah. Which
>> occupancy, minimum age, noise, quiet hours, outdoor use. >> 1 2 3 4 8 >> An eight. >> An eight. >> Mhm. >> Yeah, >> that makes sense to me if everyone agrees on that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you, Sarah.
>> And then um just kind of wanted to get into also the kind of the fines. So 74806 and we could probably it sounds like we can make some of this these decisions later, but just something to think about in the
meantime. 74806 number two. So first of all, just to clarify, there is a penalty. Um so in addition, the city may impose a civil penalty in the amount of up to $1,000 for using the property as a bed and breakfast residence without a license. So that's number one under that
section. And then number two, in addition to that penalty, the fine for each substantiated substantiated and relevant complaint or violation shall be stated in appendix D, the fee schedule. And I thought, well, maybe I just curious why if that's just to help kind
of cover us for like if in the future a thousand isn't that much or like but you're I think it's more for us to actually have a separate fee schedule for things. So, I wasn't sure how all this was going to work and how much we really wanted to
find people. Um, I mean, I think it's good to have these cuz and they have to be something worthy that people are going to change what they're doing because of it. So, so this other one is um so they start with one and I my understanding maybe maybe I should have
you explain it to me because instead of me trying to tell you what I think is happening under number one, they're getting a $1,000 fine. Is it daily? Because it says each day the property owner is in violation of this section constitutes a separate
violation. So So that could add up number one, right? So, I just wanted to make sure everyone was clear on what we're suggesting we're going to be finding people and then that we also may have a
separate penalty in our fee schedule. >> I mean, I would hope if it's some minor infraction and it takes them three days to fix it, I hope we're not charging $3,000. That would be insane to me, but I guess it depends on what it is.
It looks like the $1,000 is only if they're being a bed and breakfast without being >> without having a license. >> Correct. So like the other fee is like say I don't know, >> right? >> Parking or something like that. I don't think it would be $1,000 each day.
That's more like what our short term is, I'm assuming, too. Madame Mayor, members of the council and planning commission, this is copied exactly from the short-term rental ordinance, and this is what we adopted. So, okay. >> I don't know the exact reasoning behind this. Maybe the city attorney can um I I
think it's an option if we want to add a fee to the fee schedule if it's becoming a problem or a nuisance. >> That makes sense. I don't have the fee schedule in front of me, but I do not think our current fee schedule includes a specific separate line item for a violation for the short-term rental
other than the $1,000 that's cited in the ordinance. So, the it's confusing, but the fee schedule ordinance is a completely separate ordinance that we change the fees from time to time. This right here is saying for sure there's going to be a fine of a thousand and at some point if we want to add additional
fees to the fee schedule I think we're able to do that. So does that explanation? >> Yeah, that's kind of what I thought it was like that wants to kind of cover the little CA for number two, right? Just in case we want to add something later. >> So that doesn't exist yet.
>> There's no fee schedule for this. No, >> correct. that will be a that can be part of the conversation for this. But no, we have not established fees for the license process um renewal, registration, those types of things. >> And I would think for a unlicensed
operation, we would want each day >> right >> considered a separate violation. >> Yes. Okay. Good. All right. And then other things were just Yeah, that's all good. So that's all I had. Um,
so now I guess you have our feedback and you're going to make a few changes and bring it back and we would approve it later. That would make sense. Or is it Do you think we could do something now to say >> I mean it's kind of nice to see the final product, I guess, because we've gotten into problems before where we
don't see the final product. >> Your hands and I would feel more comfortable if we brought back a final version. Did you want to suggest a fee? Do you want to model that after a short-term rental? Um, oh, do we have a fee schedule for short-term rental >> for the registration and license process?
>> Oh, those things. Oh, that part. >> Yes, >> that that seems appropriate. >> Yeah, I would say if we have a fee schedule for that short-term rental for applying and going through the process and all that. Yeah, I would >> so model it after those fees that already exist. >> Unless you think it's more timeconuming
to do this than that or any reason to not do it that way. >> No, I think they're consistent. >> All right, thanks. Makes sense. >> When when you do provide the alternate statute or ordinance, can you provide red line copies? >> That would be awesome. Yeah, thank you.
I was going to say you got to read the whole thing and try to remember what we talked about. Okay, I guess that's it and I'll take a motion to adjourn. >> I move to adjourn the meeting. >> Thanks, Katie. Second.
>> Thanks, Orin. All in favor? I I We are adjourned.