# Council Planning Committee - January 19, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · January 19, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1180 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1180?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-01-19 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 15,102 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Planning Committee convened on January 19, 2010, at 1:25 PM, with Madam Chair presiding over the session. The meeting addressed three agenda items, all of which were informational in nature, covering topics related to local transportation and infrastructure: Sight Distance Hazards, the Newtown Pike Project Status, and an update on Liberty Road and Loudon Avenue. Over the course of the meeting, two motions were brought to a vote and one public comment was heard. As all agenda items were presented for informational purposes, the session focused on providing updates and context to committee members rather than seeking formal approvals or decisions. ## Attendance All ten council members were present at the January 19, 2010 Council meeting. No members were recorded as absent or late. **Members Present:** - Gorton - Blues - Gray - Ellinger - James - Lawless - Beard - Feigel - Stinnett - McChord ## Votes and Decisions Two motions were brought to a vote during the January 19, 2010 Council meeting, both passing by voice vote. - **Remove Tree Protection Ordinance from the Agenda** [timestamp: 1:00:28]: Council Member James moved to remove the tree protection ordinance from the agenda. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote. No individual roll call tallies were recorded. - **Moratorium Work Group Referral to Planning Committee** [timestamp: 1:29:19]: Council Member Feigl moved to direct the moratorium work group to report back to the planning committee. Council Member James seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote. No individual roll call tallies were recorded. Both votes were conducted as voice votes, so no breakdown of individual ayes, nays, or abstentions is available in the record. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council addressed one financial item during the January 19, 2010 meeting involving a grant allocation for a local housing initiative. - **Lexington Community Land Trust – $250,000 Grant:** The Council considered providing **$250,000 in initial funding** to the **Lexington Community Land Trust**. This grant represents startup or seed funding for the organization, intended to establish the land trust's operations and capacity. No resolution number or additional vendor identifiers were recorded in the available meeting data for this item. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Council during the public comment period. - **Jim Newton** spoke regarding the proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 12 of the Code of Ordinances, which pertains to housing and nuisance violations. Newton expressed concerns about the authorization of the amendment. [timestamp: 1:37:18] ## Contested Items **Moratorium Work Group Reporting Structure** A procedural dispute arose during the meeting regarding the appropriate reporting path for the moratorium work group. The disagreement centered on whether the work group should bring its findings back to the planning committee first, or report directly to the full council. Timing constraints appear to have been a central factor driving the discussion, suggesting that routing the report through the planning committee could introduce delays that were a concern for at least some members. The available record does not specify which individual council members took opposing positions in this exchange, nor does it indicate a definitive outcome or resolution that was reached. ## Sight Distance Hazards [timestamp: 00:54] The Council held a discussion on a proposed ordinance amendment aimed at addressing sight distance hazards caused by fences and other obstructions. Key participants in the discussion included Council Member Blues, Mr. Gardner, and Mr. Jarvis. The item was presented as an informational discussion, focused on the scope and details of the ordinance amendment under consideration. The discussion centered on how fences and similar structures can obstruct sightlines, particularly in contexts where clear visibility is important for public safety — such as at intersections or along roadways. No formal vote or binding decision was recorded as an outcome of this discussion, as the item was informational in nature. The matter appears to have been brought before the Council to provide members with background and context on the proposed amendment as it moves through the review process. *Note: Additional detail on specific arguments made, concerns raised, or proposals debated by Council Member Blues, Mr. Gardner, and Mr. Jarvis is not available in the source data provided for this meeting.* ## Newtown Pike Project Status [timestamp: 44:49] Andrew Grunwald delivered a presentation to the Council providing an update on the Newtown Pike Extension Project, covering the current status of temporary housing arrangements and construction phases associated with the project. The item was informational in nature, with no vote or formal action taken by the Council. No additional details regarding specific construction timelines, cost figures, housing unit counts, or particular concerns raised during the discussion are available from the meeting record. ## Liberty Road and Loudon Avenue Update [timestamp: 57:19] Bob Baird provided a brief status update to the Council on two ongoing projects: Liberty Road and Loudon Avenue. This item was informational in nature, with no vote or formal action taken. The structured data available for this agenda item does not include details on the specific content of Baird's presentation, any concerns raised by Council members, or the precise status figures or milestones discussed. The update appears to have been a routine progress briefing on both projects. The outcome of this agenda item was informational only. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Remove the tree protection ordinance from the agenda - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Ask the moratorium work group to report back to the planning committee --- ## Full transcript ... like teens and planning committee is going to go ahead and come to order. And we have ... You have a quorum, don't you? We do have a quorum here. Okay. Um, plan, planning committee has started at 1:25 because we yielded time to the, uh, Committee of the Whole meeting of the council. So the first issue on our agenda is the site distance hazards, and I guess first thing I would like to do is to call on Council Member Blues, who put this into committee, to ask for any comment or explanation or anything that you'd like to tell us before we get going. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I, I know that our committee member, uh, remember, uh, remember when I first put this into, uh, into committee. Uh, in late 19... or in late 2007, uh, a question arose in, uh, in, in my district about, uh, the question of fences that block, uh, that block the, uh, uh, uh, sight lines and created hazards. And if, if you wouldn't mind putting up those, those images on the, on the screen. A little difficult to see. Here is the, the specific, uh, uh, incident that, that prompted this. You can see that in the, in the front of this, in the front yard of this house, uh, a, a stockade fence was, uh, i- in this case attached to a, a chain-link fence. So there is a, a, a question for the, uh, in the foreground there, a driveway of the, of the nextdoor neighbor. Uh, the neighbor had, had complained that it made it extremely difficult trying to back out of the, out of the driveway into the street, and I think we can see that a little better on the next image, and that is from the, uh, next door neighbor's driveway. You see that, that, uh, uh, that fence goes almost down to the, uh, to the sidewalk, and it is, uh, at least six feet high and, and part, uh, of the, of the fence, uh, farther back is eight feet high. But you have a six-foot stockade fence completely surrounding the front yard of the, uh, uh, of the property, and blocking the sight lines and the ability to see into the street, uh, as, or even onto the sidewalk as a car is, is backing out. Now, uh, so that is the reason I put this into, in, into committee. Uh, the law department has proposed an addition to the, uh, the ordinance in, uh, in, in the, uh, code enforcement section that would, uh, make it, uh, make it illegal w- with certain exceptions as you see in the additional, uh, paragraph, uh, paragraph D to, uh, you know, to block these lines and to create a, a, a safety hazard. There would be certain exceptions for, uh, for mailboxes that could not be moved, for historic trees, uh, that sort of, sort of thing. Uh, Ed Gardner is here from the, from the law department. He is the one who drafted this, um, this section. David Jarvis is here from code enforcement because I think it probably would, uh, would fall upon code enforcement to, uh, enforce this, uh, this ordinance. I should add, too, that, uh, the assumption here is that it would be responded to on a complaint basis. So, with that, I should turn it over to other council members who want to comment and to- ... Mr. Gardner, Mr. Jarvis, or whoever else I see, uh, Mr. Crowe, uh, so anybody who, uh, wishes to weigh in, we're ready to go. Uh, council members, um, I guess first I would ask if there's any further comment from any of our administrative folks to clarify anything? Um, Mr. Gardner or Mr. Jarvis or Mr. Crowe? Mr. King? Because we do have some council members who have questions. Do you have anything to add, Mr. Gardner? No, I really don't. I think Dr. Blues did a good job of- of- of- Okay. ... outlining what this would propose to do. Um, I had learned something. I didn't know that was a legal, that was already a legal fence without something, um, unless it's higher than six feet, uh, according to the Director of Buildings inspection. So, at any rate, uh, this would be intended not only to address this type situation, uh, vis-a-vis a fence, but also anything that would, uh, create the same kind of a problem that didn't meet the exceptions. We- we tried to carve out reasonable exceptions. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, Council Member James. Thank you, um, Chair. Mr. Garner, the question for you, um, I know usually at the beginning of a section, there's some definitions and I just wondered if there were, was a definition of sight distance hazard anywhere. Uh, we talked about that. The- the definition is really just what's in here. It's a hazard that would, um, create a safety hazard due to obstruction of the sight distance of motorists. Okay. So, and, uh, th- I c- we, I did some internet research, some other research, beyond that it's difficult to define. Okay. Um, what about- Other words, it's any condition that would create a safety hazard as somebody drives, uh. Okay. I have a, I have a little bit of a problem not defining something that is so pivotal, that language is very pivotal, and I had tha- I had a similar issue with the word temporary on something that you may remember, um, and so I think any- any ti- any way that we can get as specific, as defined as we can, e- I mean, if you, if this is all you can come up with, I just foresee- It's- ... a problem because the word temporary- ... all the time. ... was also kind of, um, ambiguous to some, and you know, different definitions by others. But just foreseeing, um, potential issues. We can certainly take another look at it. Okay. Um, but this was as close as I could come to describing the problem that we were trying to address here, which was an obstruction that would create a safety hazard. Well- Two motorists, and I, and I, and if there's a better way to say it, I'd be happy to hear it, but I- I- I struggled with this and I could not come up with a clearer way to say it. Well, it's just, I know, like, in English, and- and maybe Dr. Blues can maybe help me do this, but I know I was always told that you can't define something by explaining it. Like, you can't, it has to have a definition and then what the problem is then is used within the context. So I think that the D is clear to me, but when you go for, you're- you're describing a problem, but you're not defining the definition of the problem. So a definition and a description are two different things. Maybe. I mean, if you- if you think- So I mean- ... that would make it clearer- ... I don't know. ... we'll basically have it in two places is what I'm saying. It's just, it's just a suggestion. And usually it is in two, certain words are defined because that's what we, in the sections you'll see, you know, before anything, it'll be like, you know, the word intersection will be defined, or the word curb or right of way or something like that would be defined. So if there is no other language that defines what sight distance hazard is, something could u- come up at a later point that we need to define it. I don't, I don't know. And maybe it's not necessary. Um, it, it, another- I'll just have, I'll have to reconsider it. Okay. That's fine. And I, I mean, I yield to you as the law professional, but just, you know, on the experience of the word temporary, that was kind of a big issue. Um- I don't see the word temporary. It's not in this. It was another situation where it was ambiguous. So where, if I look at something and I say, "I don't have any problem seeing that," but if you look at something you say, "I have a problem seeing it," then the definition needs to b- really be clear, and maybe not necessarily within the context of, of this, but in a definition series- But what- ... that's referred back to. It would help me if you could explain the problem you're having with- with what's not clear about this. I'm trying to explain that to you. And obviously if you're not understanding that, I'm not saying it well enough or maybe it's not necessary. So you're the law professional. If you feel like this is okay, I'll yield to you. Um, I just foresee from the description that it could be, it could be a problem by not having it defined. But if you're good to go with it, then I yield to you on that. Well, I'll take another look at it. Okay. But I- I was good to go with it or I wouldn't have brought it to you. Well, too bad y- you have to have council members to pass things, you can do it yourself. Um, on fence, on the fence definition, um, what in, what about in the case of a chain link fence? Is that something that it would be allowed 'cause you can see through it. It's not a sight- It might help- ... a sight distant hazard. Yeah. That might help us go work through what I think your problem is. A- a chain link fence could violate this if it creates a safety hazard due to obstruction of the sight distance. So- ... a- a- a- any chain link fence not- wouldn't necessarily cause a problem, but a certain chain link fence might. Like a netted chain link or- Exactly. Yeah. It would depend on a case-by-case basis. Okay. So what I was trying to do in this was to- to create the situation we're trying to solve which is having obstructions that- that cause safety problems for motorists. And then you list without exclusion some examples of those things. But anything, any condition that would create that type situation would be a violation of this ordinance. But the key is does it create a safety hazard due to the obstruction and the safety hazard would occur due to the obstruction of the sight distance of motorists. Okay. And if it does that, then it would violate this. If a chain link fence is see-through and there's no problem with you know when you're backing up, pulling up, or whatever you can see cars because you can see through the chain link fence, and I'm sure we could all think of examples of that, it wouldn't violate this ordinance. Okay. But if it were that fence in the same location than on the way this is written it would. So that would be subjective to the, um, inspector? It would be s- uh, it- it would be... I guess that's true, just like any, any, you know, are weeds 12 inches high or not? You know, I mean, it's- it's like what- what's- what- what's violated is- is- what somebody- You can measure that. Well, that's true. Well, if somebody, well what's- what's I guess to some extent you have to say, "Can you see through it or not?" If you can't, then it's an obstruction. If you can, it's not. Okay. And you can measure that too I suppose. Okay. Thank you. Um, my next question is for, uh, Mr. Jarvis. Hi. Hi. Do you know of other locations other than this location where this issue exist right now? No, I'm not aware of any. Again, I think it's gonna be on a complaint basis also, I think really what we've dealt with in the- in the past has been mainly overgrowth. Honeysuckle bushes, that sort of thing. I know there was a situation out on Chase Place out of Stone Road, and there was some honeysuckle overgrowth, and we addressed that with the help of Streets and Roads. But I think issues like this, and again an issue like this would be addressed through the permit process, through building inspection first. 'Cause you have to have a permit to put a fence up like that, and you wouldn't be allowed to. Okay. So, therefore, you know, that would get caught in the permit process. Okay. And then we would have the authority to go out and cite the property owner and then I suppose issue civil penalties through- through the nuisance section- Okay. ... 126. Would the, I only have 13 seconds left, would the distance between the boards make a difference as far as your inspectors would cite? So if, I know there's regulation of what the distance can be for public safety issues anyway. What, how does that, the distance between the boards of a fence play in with Section D here? We would follow the guidelines by the permit process. In other words, if you've got a permit to put that fence up and it was under permit and legal, then we would follow that guideline. Okay. We wouldn't come back out and say, "Oh no, we can't see through it. Gotta take it down." Okay. We wouldn't do that. All right, thank you. Thanks, Madam Chair. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, uh, I appreciate council members, uh, Council Member James', uh, concern about definition because it- you- you do want it to be clear. It does seem to me that- that the, uh, that the definition is included here in the, uh, in the wording. But I wanted to ask, uh, an enforcement officer, uh, for his opinion and since you're standing right there- Sure. ... uh, whether this- whether this language you think would be adequate to, uh, you know, to- to, uh, to you and your inspectors going out to a site on having received a complaint and making a determination of whether there is a- a- a safety hazard here that can be met- mitigated. I- it would be. And again, uh, we would also follow the guidelines of the permit process. And I know there's language in there about a motor park, motor vehicle. Uh, if it was on the street, we would refer it to the police department for their guidance on that, um, you know, we wouldn't have any jurisdiction over a motor vehicle on the street. Let's say if you had one parked in the driveway that was on a corner lot and you couldn't see around that, then, you know, something that we could address through our process. And again, you know, the language, it's something that, you know, we can- we can even work on a little bit more with the law department, but currently, I mean, w- it would give us the authority to address it. Thank you. And- and I have a- a- a question for Mr. Gardner. Uh, I- I think that Council Member Stennett, uh, and I don't wanna speak for him, I- I assume he'll be back to- to ask, but he's- he's concerned about the- the grandfathering question, whether a- a site hazard already in place would be e- exempted under this- this ordinance. Not as it is written. Okay. And so what do we do if we have a situation in which there is a site hazard, but it would be, uh, it's- it's, uh, it's a permanent construction? Well, like anything they're going, there may be, like a lot of things, there may be enforcement issues and equities and all other kinds of things that come, would come into play. Um, and I think what David was mentioning in terms of if- if something has been through a permitting process and has been permitted, then- I don't want to hold any or, um, tie anyone's hands, but at that point, I have a question, would it be appropriate if somebody had gone through all the appropriate steps to come back later and say, "Well, no you can't have that." Uh, that would be difficult to, uh, to defend. Um, by the same token, if it's something that's, that meets some of the other criteria here, you know, uh, a type of shrubbery or, or a location of a, of a car that could be parked somewhere else, or those kinda things. And the fact that they've been there all along would certainly, it would seem to me, not cause a sufficient hardship that it would be inappropriate to take action in those situations. It's, I, I'm sorry I can't give you a better answer, but those are the factors that are crossing through my mind right now, in terms of permanent structures that would be quite expensive to, to deal with. Uh, i- if it's a bad enough hazard, and if they did not get a permit for it or, or whatever, hypothetically, then maybe there would be a rational basis to do enforcement against them. If they went through our Department of Buil- or Division of Building Inspection, crossed all the Ts and dotted all the Is and we were to come back later and tell them to take something out, that, that strikes me as problematic. So it, it, it looks like what we might be talking about here is that the difference between a situation that can be mitigated, overgrown shrubbery, a, a fence, uh, and to use Council Member James's, uh, word, that, that might be viewed as temporary or at least in this, in the sense that it, it could be, it could be removed or some other obstruction that could be removed as opposed to, uh, structures, uh, and, and, you know, and, and- I, I guess one example- ... such, such as trees- Oh, excuse me. No, I was just gonna say, we, we already exempt certain things here in the, in the, in the draft, historic trees, uh, uh, mailboxes that can't be removed and, and so forth. So- It might be well to consider, and I had not, and you and I have talked and, you know, I just had not kinda come up the idea of a grandfathering or certain extra, um, restrictions on who might be enforced against. Some of that may bear a little bit more thought. Um, the thought that's crossing my mind now is if you go through some of our older subdivisions or maybe even the, quote, "newer" subdivisions, there may be houses that were constructed on lots that actually might meet this criteria in terms of causing a site problem. Nothing otherwise illegal about them. I, I, I think certainly we wouldn't wanna be in a situation of of t- we're not gonna tell somebody to tear their house down. We clearly are not gonna do that. So maybe we work back from that in some way that would cre- make a more rational place to draw that line. Yeah. And I'm not prepared to tell you exactly where that is now. I think Council Member James makes a good point in terms of the potential clarity here. This is also another very good point that you really don't get to until you get you guys looking at these things and, and thinking about it from, from all different perspectives. Yeah. I'm, I'm, my time is up, but can I ask one, uh, or, or note a question that I would have asked if my time- ... was not up and that is, whether this, uh, whether this, uh, new section of the ordinance would influence the, uh, the permitting process? And since Mr. Crow is here, if somebody wanted to ask that question, then he might be able to answer it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Crow. I assume someone wants to answer that- Yes. ... ask that question. I, yes, I'd like to know the answer to that question. For the most part, this ordinance change wouldn't have any impact on how we review or issue permits. We currently, the setback requirements in most zones prevent buildings from being located out where they would be a problem, or other permanent structures without obtaining some type of variance from the Board of Adjustment. Now, some of the older areas of town, we do have old non-conforming structures that were built right out at the property lines and could potentially be an issue. But as Mr. Gardner indicated, I don't believe anybody would be attempting to have them tear down a, you know, a 50-year-old home that had been there and built leg- legally at the time. Fences, for the most part, we look at, uh, when we issue fence permits, we look at the requirements for the height in the front yard, which is six foot. There's currently no limitation whether you build, uh, put up a, a chain link or whether you put up, uh, a privacy fence as you saw in the, uh, photo earlier. That fence is legal the way it is, and in fact it, the guidelines that we apply for site distance are out of Section 3, 3-3 of the zoning ordinance, Article 3, Section 3, Zoning Ordinance, which basically spells out how far back you have to be to be out of the sight distance triangle. And that fence does, does meet that. In fact, I remember us having discussions and having inspectors out to re-review this location, trying to determine if it was in compliance. But it only has to be 10 feet back of the curb line, and that one is. So, from our standpoint, anybody that applies for a fence permit in the future, unless there are changes made to the type of fence that you can actually locate in the front yard, such as limitations, further limitations on the height other than six foot or, or some type of opacity requirement where, like, chain link can be used where you can actually see through the chain link as opposed to a privacy fence. Then if someone come in with that same fence proposal and presented it to us, we would have no recourse other than to issue the permit because they would be in compliance with current, current law. Thank you very much. I'm sure if there are questions about that in particular, don't leave the room. Okay? Uh, Council Member Feigl. Well, I think Mr. Crow may have just answered my question. Uh, when we were talking about, um, um, structures that have been here for a long time, um, or, or a house or whatever, it seems to me that going to the Board of Adjustments could, would be an option. Is that correct? Under this ordinance? Had to confer with, I had to confer with somebody, may, maybe a little more expert. But basically, the Board of Adjustment doesn't, wouldn't typically have jurisdiction in this type situation to grant a variance for a violation of a code of ordinance provision. If you think about it, that- Okay. But this is a, a proposing a different code, correct? Is that what we're doing here, is proposing a change in the code? A change in our code of ordinances, but the, but the waiver that the, the, um, Board of Adjustment deals with relates to the zoning ordinance. It's created with authority to deal with... Correct me, correct me when I'm wrong- Okay. It's created to deal with- Primarily zoning. To deal with the zoning. And that's it. So it wouldn't be a Board of Adjustment issue. Okay. So there is no appeals board at all then for, um- Well, it would, yeah, it would go through the same process as any other nuisance abatement. There would be a notice. There would then be a cite, I, I think a citation. David could tell us exactly, and then it would end up in front of a hearing officer. Oh, okay. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Chair. I'm not sure who would answer this, but my question is, um, dealing with the tree specifically, and I just wondered the role. Will the urban forester be taking care of that or will that go through code enforcement as far as if a tree needs to be removed? As I say, I'm thinking of abatement, um, and determining, um, what happens with that tree. 'Cause how do you know whether it needs to be, to be pruned or removed completely? Well, that's a very good question. Um, if it's historic or I mean a significant tree, then there's specific criteria in the zoning ordinance about that and we covered that here. Right. You're talking about a tree that is causing a problem that doesn't meet the criteria of a significant tree. Yes. I guess is what you're saying. That mentioned in, um, section D. Then I think it would be if it's a street tree, then the arborist would have some authority to deal with it. Our urban forester rather, not our arborist. Um, if we still have someone called an arborist, I suppose they would too. But I know we have an urban forester now. But, uh, uh, at any rate, if it were in a yard though or whatever, I think it would be up to the private property owner to deal with it and if they could... Certainly if they could trim it without cutting it out and remove the obstruction, I would assume that's what they would do. But if it's their tree, if it's in their yard, it's their tree. We would have no authority on whether- Right. ... it should be removed or not. And a street tree, I would think, it's always, I think it's always cheaper to have it trimmed than removed. If that's the case, then certainly if it's a street tree- I'm with you. ... the arborist would, or the urban forester would be there to advise and say, "Well, you don't have to take this out. If you'll just do this, this pruning, then you'd, you'd be all right." But other than street trees, the r, r, r person wouldn't have authority over it. Okay. Is there, is that part of the process? Is the- Yeah. Is there a process lined out that if it is a tree as far as code enforcement is concerned, that could even be now that the urban forester signs off on that or can acknowledge that or it goes to the tree board or something, something's referred to someone regarding trees? I'm not sure how code deals with- Okay. If they even deal with trees now. Okay. We do not. We do not deal with trees. The only thing we deal with c- currently right now are sidewalk obstructions, bushes, that sort of thing. Okay. Or if you have a tree that's blocking the sidewalk, o- overhanging, something like that. But no, we wouldn't address trees. And that may be something that we could add in section E, maybe referring back to the, um, urban forester if it d- if it is a street tree or if it's a significant tree. I think there's language in there, but e- it may be beneficial to, you know, refer back to the street tree ordinance. Well, there's lang- there's language about trees in both D and E. Right. So that's, D is what I'm really concerned about 'cause, um, E has article 26. Right. So I'm, I'm good with that. Yeah. It's the D I'm concerned about a little bit. Sure. Can you maybe talk with, um, our urban forester and find out how he feels like that, that, he could play a role in that? I can. Okay. Thank you. And I had one last question. What was it? I wrote it over here. Um, oh, this is for Dewey, or I'm sorry, Mr. Crow. Uh, you talked about setbacks, um, and this, the standard that exists. Is the setback the same for a temporary fence or temporary structure as it is for a permanent structure or a permanent fence? Well, any fence permit we issue, basically the f- a fence has always been considered a temporary structure in the fact that it has a limited life and will come down at some point. But from our point we issue a, a permit, it doesn't expire within 30 days or a year or anything like that. The fence, if maintained, could obviously remain there for many, many years. And from that point, it's basically a permanent structure. But fences are one of the, uh, few structures that are allowed to go all the way out into the front yard, which is normally a setback area. Typical, um, residential setback is 30 feet behind the property line to where you can start what we consider construction of a home, a porch, uh, the actual living space of the house. To build closer than that with a structure- ... to extend the house out closer than that would require a variance from the Board of Adjustment, and typically, i- when you request those type of variances, that's, those issues are gonna come up before the Board of Adjustment. That you're creating potential safety hazards, you may be blocking sight lines. Those things get, uh, weighed and discussed during the Board of Adjustment, and their decision depends, um, obviously on what that discussion led to. If it's gonna be a safety hazard, then they're gonna be reluctant to certainly approve any construction that would be further out in the yard, especially real close to the street. Okay. So when someone comes for a temporary permit for something, which are, what are they now, 90 days? Is that a ni- a 90-day something? It, it could be. Okay. But typically, you're, we normally, on a temporary structure, it's gonna be usually where you see these things close to the street is a business zone, more so than a residential zone. There's not really anything anybody's asking for on a temporary basis, uh, for a residential lot that were gonna grant out there. Okay, so this only, this only, um, goes for residential? Uh, I believe it covers everything. Is that it? It is everything. Okay, so- But you're not gonna run into these issues as much certainly in, in commercial areas. We require, if you were asking for, and I'll tell you a good example of a temporary structure that we grant quite frequently is the small retail sales, tents and things you'll see during, uh, special seasons entir- terms of the year. They're supposed to be behind the setback line for any permanent structure at that location as well. Okay. So, they're generally, we're, we, in the past, we've had 'em set up without coming to us, and yes, they'll put 'em out there and they create a site problem. We go out and make them move 'em back. There are ways they can get closer, but they gotta go again through a variance process or have development plans altered that show it located closer than what the current setbacks are. There's processes they can go through where the safety or potential sight line issues are gonna come up in part of the discussion for approval. So, they are subject to the change. The- Yeah. ... temporary would be subject to that as well. Y- yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, Council Member Senate. Thank you, Chair. Just want, uh, to go back to the grandfathering question. And I know, uh, Council Man Blues asked it earlier. So, if people are not grandfathered in, and we're gonna have to go back out, w- what's gonna be the process going forward? Who's gonna go back out and enforce this ordinance or this type of ordinance if we pass it? Well, I think the, the sense is that code enforcement would respond to it on a, on a complaint-driven- Issue a nuisance citation, I assume? That is what this is, that is what this is intended to do, Council Member Senate, is this would create a nuisance for having a site distance, for creating a site distance hazard, and it would go through that same process in terms- Okay. ... of notice, citation, opportunity to appear before a hearing officer, that, that kinda thing, so it's- That's on, that's on the backend after something's already been put up and already been in existence. What about on the front end? I assume it'd be building inspection would enforce this, so they would not allow a fence to go up if it was gonna violate this ordinance, or would it still be code enforcement? Well, uh, I- I mean, they're issuing the fence permits, so I assume- I would assume that this would be another, another, uh, I don't wanna speak for, for Mr. Crow, but I would assume this would be something that if it were gonna create a problem in that sense under this ordinance, uh, it would be a reason, could be a reason to deny the, uh, the permit, I, I guess. Okay, so we denied 'em the permit, they put it up anyway, then it becomes a code enforcement issue once again, right? No, I think, I think it's a building inspection at that point, isn't it due? But that's what I'm trying to clarify, 'cause you know, I have this situation in my district as well, and we've dealt with it over the last few years and, and code for- code enforcement's never been involved. I'm just trying to figure out how we're tying their involvement into this situation. How we are, how are we tying code enforcement's involvement into a fence situation? Legally. Because b- I've had this issue and, and they've never been involved with it in my district. It's always been- You've had the permitting issue? No, the issue with the fence that's been constructed legally by a permit, but it's a sight distance problem. People can't back out of their driveways. And we've tackled it before in the law department five years ago. I'm glad we're talking about it again, but- I, I didn't realize that. I, my word search didn't find that, or I'd be using- I, I just went upstairs to get the research on it, but I have it all. And the result was? We can't do anything. The, as long as they're in the setback, which is 15 feet, we have no authority to, to change it. Okay. You're addressing what Mr. Crow was talking about in terms of if it meets the criteria for having, putting a fence in. Right. Okay. But if, if, if it doesn't meet that criteria, then it would be a non-conforming- Right. ... use of structure and it would be the- I understand, but if it does meet the, the requirement to be able to put up a fence, how are we saying it's a nuisance at that point? How are we tying that legally saying they have to take it down if they've met all of our other criteria? Because it would create the site, the site distance hazard, which is another overlay on top of what the setbacks and everything, that would be the, that would be the idea behind it, is that notwithstanding the fact that it meets, you know, the distances, it's creating a hazard that we want to prohibit. But isn't the site setback supposed to be the, the abiding bylaw that's supposed to eliminate those hazards, that it's set back far enough not to create a hazard? I think that's the, I think that's the idea. I guess in, in- And we already heard that in the books. ... certain cases, in certain cases it's not, it, it's not seen as doing that, and that's what we're trying to address here. If we, if we do, uh, need to take fences out and not cover fences, then maybe that's what we need to do. I, I, I know that the, uh, um, the fact that something is, is legal under one set of circumstances doesn't make it automatically legal under every other set. Well, I, I, I just think, again, we need to look at the setback requirements at certain intersections and, and maybe that's an issue as well. That was what I was thinking as I was listening to Mr. Crow. There may be certain situations where the setback requirements need to be, or the site distance or whichever, uh- ... Criteria need to be looked at and possibly dealt with in general so that this situation would not -- would not occur. Um, I do know that, uh, there's a -- there's a sense that -- that the ones that are on the books, I guess, are supposed to handle this problem, but in certain cases, as have been pointed out, it -- it -- there still has. And I assume if we pass this, this will apply to shrubbery or overgrown brush that's along the roadway and we would enforce it on our own self along our own right of ways as well? I would have no, uh, no dealings with that. Uh, but I would suppose we should as an example. A -- the -- the orders would cover that as well? Any -- any shrubbery, bushes, trees, even if it's in our own right of way, we would have to enforce cutting it back so people could have a -- a opportunity to see pulling out, or remove it? From a legal standpoint, I don't know that we could enforce -- we would have to enforce it against ourselves. Yeah. But we should. Yeah, I agree. We should. I'm just saying, we gotta understand this, that if we pass this, we got a lot of area, a lot of intersections that we're going to have to do ourself, so thank you. Thank you. Yes, and, um, Council Member Stennett's question, can you just clarify one more time to the grandfathering piece, I thought you said if a... earlier, if a... for an... example, if a fence was permitted and had followed all the current law and was put in, it would be grandfathered in. Well, it's not the way it's written, Council Member- Okay. ... Gordon. We can certainly add that to it. ... if that's the case. And I get the sense that that's what... perhaps that's what we're... what I'm hearing that people would want to do. Um, what I said was, is that as it's written, it didn't really grandfather anybody. Mm-hmm. But as a practical matter, it'd be hard for me to see that it c- that -- that we would, A, we would want to enforce it against something that had been completely through our permitting process, and again, using the extreme example of a structure, a house that had been built that creates this problem- Right. ... I was just saying, I'm certain we would not pursue enforcement. And then taking it one step further, it's hard to conceive that a code enforcement officer would would order someone to do it, if it got that far. But we probably, based on what I'm hearing today, need to consider putting some grandfathering language in here, and putting everyone on -- on notice so that they'll think about it when they plant their shrubs, they'll think about it when they place things on their -- on their property, and I -- I can certainly do that. I made a few other notes, uh, about -- about some amendments, so I'll add that. Okay. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. I -- I -- uh, I think this has been a very helpful discussion and the issues that were raised should be, uh, uh, should be attended to in -- in -- in further discussions. I, uh, uh, I think it's obvious we don't wanna move this , try to move it forward at this, uh, at this time, so I will go back with, uh, with Mr. Gardner in code enforcement and building inspection and, um, and -- and s- and, uh, with a view toward addressing these, uh, uh, these issues, consult with Council Member Stennett and the materials that he has from a previous effort. I should add, too, before we, uh, before we conclude, uh, this discussion for now, and -- and that is that, uh, really when I put this in committee, it had kind of two parts. One part, this i- the visual obstruction, and the other, the -- the question of fence heights. And , uh, uh, Chris King and the d- division of -- of planning, when I discussed this with -- with him, he has begun at least some -- some consideration of a -- a text amendment that would that would address that issue. But that's a, uh, that's a separate but -- but not unrelated discussion. And I know Mr. King's here this afternoon, and I -- I -- I don't know if you wanted to comment on that at this time or or not, but, uh, but as I say, we will... that will be part of this discussion, uh, eventually. I'll just briefly address, we have been doing research and find that very few communities allow a six-foot-high fence in the front yard in residential districts, and the text amendment on its face would be a pretty simple one, basically changing one number. If you would like, we could bring back at least a, uh, a quick version of that and -- and have you look at that, 'cause it is a related question, at your next meeting, if you would like. It wouldn't be any problem to prepare that. Well, I -- I think, and I'd like to bring that, uh, uh, bring that when we do have a revised version of -- of this draft. So I'll coordinate with you on that as -- as well. That's fine. I'll coordinate with Mr. King and you and the others that you mentioned, and we'll... when we come back, we'll have both aspects addressed. That'd be great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, for part one of this discussion. Very good. Um, so you're going to collaborate with planning and building inspection and whoever else you need to, uh, talk with clarifying tree issues, any more clarity on site distance, grandfathering issues, reviewing setbacks, um, and then the height of... the height of fences in the front yard. Does that cover- That's pretty much my notes. That's- ... just about a few more? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And so, can you please, um, maybe have that ready for next month? Would that be do-able? We can -- We can shoot- That would be- We can shoot for that. Okay. That would be February 16th. So- My birthday. Oh, your birthday. Well, good. That's a great way to celebrate. Um. Oh, Council Member James. I, I just have one, um, suggestion, which, it -- you can take it or leave it, but it might help for, um, some folks interested in the process, as Council Member Stennett talked about, the role of code enforcement, the role of buildi-building inspection. If we could have maybe a flow chart of how a violation happens, who cites it, and if, you know, if it's a tree issue, if urban forestry will be involved and just kinda show the line of how that, you know, goes down, if they appeal, you know? As Council Member Feigl thought it went to the Board of Adjustments, but it doesn't. You know, that sort of thing. So, if we could have a flow chart, that would be helpful. It's a good idea. Thank you. Is that -- Can you all ... I'm looking at, uh, Ed and Mr. Gardner. Can you coordinate that with the other folks? Bring that also? Yeah. Okay. Very good. Good suggestion. Is there anything else on this issue? Oh, Council Member Stennett. Mr. Gardner, if you could also look at, uh, when you -- if we're gonna talk about fence height, any enforcement action we've taken to regulate that ordinance as it is. Um, because we have fences out there that are above the six-foot height that we have not enforced. So, can you get a history of that as well because any changes we're gonna have to enforce, and if we're not enforcing the current, then there needs to be changes on that as well. Just, I- I certainly can do that, although law department's not involved in enforcement. I know, but, but whoever comes back to it, we need that information because then any changes that Mr. King suggests, we've gotta be able to enforce. I guess my only hesitation is that ... These, these- Well, maybe not you, but- These are the guys we're gonna have to ask, so I'll, I'll be happy to do that. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Good point. Okay. Does that, uh, does every- anyone else have a question or comment? If not, we'll move on to our next agenda item, which is an update status report. Andrew Grunwald is here to give that for the Newtown Pike Extension Project. And Andrew, welcome. We've asked for a very brief presentation, just what you've given us here, so it's- Yes, ma'am. Um, do you wanna highlight anything on the- I'll, I'll go through it very quick and then if there are any questions, um, please feel free to, to ask me. Um, I've taken it and broken it down into, uh, the two prime areas that we're working on. Phase one and then, of course, phase four. I'll cover the phase one area first. Um, in our phase one area we're, we're cons- still working on our temporary housing area as well as, uh, acquiring property. This is located down in the Davis Bottoms or the South End Park area. Um, we have almost completed site work to, uh, to place two additional manufactured homes. Um, this will bring the total up to 18, um, uh, temporary relocatees who will be living in our temporary housing area. These two additional sites will be ready in March. Um, our consultant, um, that we have hired to acquire the property for the phase one area is H.W Lochner. Um, they have completed all the appraisals. Um, they are under review by the Transportation Cabinet for this area. It's about 50 pieces of property, uh, give or take a little bit. Um, we have, uh, begun meeting with the residents, um, who can be relocated with this project. They're, uh, the owner-occupied properties. We've met with eight so far, and these meetings are ongoing. Um, the, uh, third note, um, under phase one is the, uh, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet has authorized us to, uh, the Lexington-Fetterman County Government to transfer funds to the Lexington Community Land Trust in the amount of $250,000. Um, this is the first installment of five. Uh, basically $250,000 over the next five years will be transmitted to, uh, ensure this organization, um, continues on. For the, uh, phase four, construction, this is from Main Street to Versailles Road. Um, the work continues on the, uh, northern abutment. Um, this is right down there along Cocke Street. Um, I don't know if, if you've been down there or not, you can actually see the abutment. It's, uh, they're building the formwork as we, over the last couple of weeks. Um, Kentucky American Water is still relocating a fairly large water line, which runs underneath the center pier as well as, uh, the far abutment. Hopefully, um, they do have their valves ordered and they will be out of the way within the next couple of weeks. Um, we are, uh, continuing to coordinate with the R.J. Corman Railroad and the Transportation Cabinet, um, regarding a major modification to extend a rail spur underneath the new bridge. That work is ongoing. And some things that you can, uh, at least look forward to in the rest of this month and in February, there'll be some, uh, minor temporary aerial relocations, uh, of all the, uh, aerial utility lines along Cocke Street. That pretty much concludes my report. Andrew, thank you very much. I don't see ... Well, I see a council member on for a question. Council Member Feigl. That's me. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Andrew, for the report. Um, I just had one question. I know in a previous conversation that you and I had had, um, there was some, um- ... indication that we may not have our utilities underground by the World Games, that we would have aerial, um, utilities, um, during that time. Yes, ma'am. And I wanted you to just comment on that to see if that's still the case. Uh, yes, ma'am, that is still the case. Um, some of the work, uh, for the utility conduits will be in place, but all of them will not be. Um, we will not, uh, or the utility companies will not pull the lines until basically all of the conduit is in place. Some of that work will take place after the World Equestrian Games. So we, we will still have aerial lines- Mm-hmm. ... temporary aerial lines in place- Mm-hmm. ... when the World Equestrian Games are ongoing. Well, my only comment to that was I think, um, you know, the council did pass a, you know, I don't know if it was a resolution, ordinance, or whatever to, to request that those lines be, be underground. And I think it was then in anticipation for the World Games. So- That's correct. ... I, I'm a little disappointed that, I mean, I'm glad that they will ultimately be, um, underground, but, uh, disappointed that they, that it won't occur before the World Games. I, yeah, I think the project team as well as the, uh, the, our con- the contractor working on it, they would have loved to, to, to meet that schedule and, I'm not saying that they won't still try, but it i- it is very doubtful. I, I can't, you know, short of a miracle, I, I can't see it happening. Okay, thank you. Yes, ma'am. Council member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to add, uh, with, uh, with reference to Andrew's, uh, third bullet point on, on the temporary housing area, that the community land trust board will, uh, is, is trying to move forward, uh, along with the progress toward, uh, you know, toward construction, um, in the, um, you know, in the new residential, uh, affordable housing area. So we will be, uh, with reference to that 200 first, first, uh, uh, infusion of, of dollars, the $250,000 will be, uh, we'll be looking to, to hire an executive director, uh, and a, uh, and a staff. Uh, the board has also, uh, is now, um, asking for, for bids on our, on a bank account. And we're, in addition to that, working on a conflict of interest statement, because we're interested in, of course, conforming to the, uh, you know, to the, to the recommendations of the, of the state auditor's, uh, uh, report so that we, uh, we, uh, when, as we hit the ground running, we know that we're, uh, we're, we're paying attention to all the rules and, and recommendations. So, um, and I, I, I, I think that the construction of the, you know, the road and the bridge, very complicated. And it's, uh, uh, I, I think the construction will be, uh, will be, uh, uh, you know, will be moved forward as, as, as expeditiously as is, um, as is possible. One of the next things we'll, we'll want to be looking at too are the public art projects that would be part of the bridge. And we'll have more on that, uh, later on. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council member James. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thank you, Andy. Um, curious as to whether you're still having your resident meetings with any of the residents in the area. We, we still have resident meetings. Um, we did- Are they still well, are they well attended? Uh, yes, ma'am. We, I think we, I was not at the one in December, but I think it was very well attended. Uh- They're monthly? Yes, ma'am, they're monthly. Okay. As a matter of fact, we have one, uh, this Thursday. Okay. So... Um, what's going on with the residents? What's the focus of the meetings that are going on now? Um, primarily we just try to keep them informed as of the progress, um, uh, and to keep them, uh, interested in the project is probably the best way to say that, uh, our, our projects are very long and complicated, and it's very easy for people to lose interest. So we, we discuss where we are, where we're trying to go, um, we get their feedback. If they have any questions, uh, we, we do our best to answer them at that time. And these are primarily residents that plan on staying in the area, so they're either in the temporary places now or still in their old places? Yes, ma'am, that is correct. Um, but they are open to, to anybody in the general public. Who's working with, is there a group working on, like, credit ready, readiness or financial literacy or anything with the, with the residents? Each resident who will, um, ultimately move into the final, uh, South End Park development, um, we are requiring that they take a class, and I believe the class is, uh, put on through, um, say it's Community Action Council. It, it's a first time homeownership class. Okay. Um, I can find out more information- Yeah, I'd be interested in that. ... to let you know exactly what the... But it's an order so that they can qualify for a, um, I think it's a $25,000 HUD benefit. Okay. Th- this class is a prerequisite to get that money. Have they already started? Yes, ma'am, quite a few of the residents have. Okay. All right, that's good. Th- uh, um, the reason council member, or committee members, why, um, I say that is the, the, um, Bluegrass Spindale area, um, as it has changed over to the Equestrian View at East End, um, talking with some of the realtors now, one of the, in thinking about what they could have done better, um, they say they should have started financial literacy and credit wordy, readiness way, way, way before the houses were ready, because now that it's time to build, um, it's a good time to build, money's, you know, it's really good for the building industry right now. You really wanna get folks in there so they can get good rates. Um, but they're not ready, not a lot of them are ready, um, financially right now, and they're just now starting the process. So as, you know, if any, if there's anything, any connections that I can make in the way of housing or counseling, um, and so there's a association of realtors, um, NAREB, um, that, um, we've worked with a little bit on the east side of town. Be happy to share that information. But they, they say the more information you can get to folks in advance, you, you don't want people to see houses going up and then they, they come too late, or you can't have the houses sitting vacant and then they lose out on those opportunities. So it's, um, it's good that you have that a- available, and I'd love for you to share that information with me. Thank you. Yes, ma'am, I will. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member Blues. The, uh, the counseling and the classes have been going on for several months. I don't know exactly when they started, but it's been at least a year. And, uh, and I, I believe the classes are being held at Reach, if I'm not mistaken. Y- yes, sir, I think, I think that's where they are being held. So, so there has been, uh, y- y- you know, from the, from the very outset of consciousness of the, of the, of the necessity for, uh, for a, a whole financial education and to, and, and to put these pros- prospective buyers in, uh, in readiness to, uh, uh, to be purchasers of, of homes and to manage budgets, uh, after the, after the purchase. Very good. Andrew, thank you very much. We really appreciate it. And, uh, the next item that we want to attend to, if you'll turn to the very back page, council members, Bob Baird is here. We weren't able to get a written report on Liberty Road and Loudon Avenue, but Bob, if you could give us a brief status update on Liberty Road and Loudon and then we'll work our way through our issues. Thanks. Welcome. Thank you. Um, Liberty Road Phase 1B, um, it's a contract that has been bid by the state, uh, awarded by the state. Um, L&M Asphalt Partners was the successful low bidder. Um, a little under three million dollars was the bid and the contractor anticipates starting work, uh, in March. Utility work, uh, on Liberty Tides is, is done. That's about all I have. Do you have anything... Okay, I don't see anything on... Do you have a question? Thank you. I'm working off the list on the electronic one. Council Member Student. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Bear, thank you for coming a- and giving us the update. A lot of people have been waiting for this intersection, which is Man O' War, Liberty and Tides, which is very congested right now. Just so everyone's clear, we've al- they've already started work. The contract has already been let to them. They're doing site survey and survey work. They'll actually, you'll see digging starting probably March, April. And the deadline is still clear of September 1st before the World Equestrian Games, correct? Um... Before the holiday season? The, I've, I've not heard the World Equestrian Games part from the state, but I will, I'll check with that on our next meeting with them. Well, in our last meeting with the state, there was a definitive December 1st deadline that this project would be done. And I mean, you and I worked on this. We, we know what can happen. That's why I want to make sure we stay on top of it, um, especially before holiday season out there. Did you say December 1st? September 1st. September 1st. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chair. That'll follow up. Thank you. Bob, do you have an update, a brief update on Loudon? Um, yes, the, the work remaining on Loudon Avenue is actually on Warfield Place. Uh, there was a, a stone wall taken down there prior to the, uh, onset of, of construction. It's been... As much of the stone as was salvageable has been stockpiled at our Streets and Roads yard. Um, we're in the process of coordinating with, um, historic preservation, with the masonry instructor at the, uh, south side campus of the Fayette Technical Center, and the neighborhood as far as, uh, placement of the, of the replacement wall, what it will look like, um, and that's... Should, should be, um, constructed this summer. Are there any questions about the Loudon update? If not, thank you very much. Thank you. Um, council members, let's look down through our list. Um, some of these items have been in committee a long time and are not ready. So if we can look and see if there are any we want to go ahead and remove today. Council Member James. Um, Madam Chair, we can go ahead and remove the tree protection ordinance at this time. I make a motion to remove that. Okay, I have a motion to remove the tree protection ordinance. Second. And a second. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. And so we'll remove that. If another issue about it comes up, we can always put it back in. Um, now, uh, other issues on here. Um, Council Member Lawless isn't here to... I'm not sure about the intent of the Downtown Master Plan at this point, so we'll, I'll ask her about that. Council Member James, uh, the mobile home trailer park quality of life- Yeah. ... is there something coming forward on that? Or shall we- Well, I was just thinking that I need to, um, I need to call a meeting of that and we can decide as a group whether we want to pro- proceed. Um, there are a couple of issues. It is a very, um, a very complicated situation because it's dealing with private property. Um, but there are some things that we could look at if we choose to do so, so I'm gonna get Sarah to schedule a meeting, um, so we can go over, um, our mission and decide whether or not we want to dissolve that or if we wanna go ahead and schedule some subsequent meetings. Okay, very good. So I will get back with you on that. Okay, very good. Um, Vice Mayor? Vice Mayor, on the infill redevelopment recommendations, oh, I've, I can ask you in a minute. We can come back to that. Um, the, uh, Parks Master Plan has a sub-committee working, um, Downtown Lexington Building Inventory, Betty Kerr will be ready, I'm hoping next month, February, um, and then the last five issues are very recently put into committee and are being worked on. So, um, Vice Mayor, what about infill redevelopment recommendations? There's a good r- There's a good, uh, summary that, um, Jimmy Emmons has done recently that I'll distribute to you, Madam Chair, if that's okay? And then you can forward on to other, uh, members of the committee. I think it would also perhaps be useful to schedule a update to the committee when it's, when it's, um, when you can put it on the schedule. Okay. We could... Would it be ready for February? I think we can make it ready. Uh-huh. Because we'll have the fence regulations coming back. We will have the Downtown Lexington Building Inventory. If we could have that come back to us in February, that would be excellent. Great. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Very good. I have a question. Yes, Council Member James. I w- I wonder, Vice Mayor, if you... Can you provide the list of who you believe is currently on the Infill and Redevelopment Committee as far as representative of council members when you submit that list? I, I know that w- there've been several meetings and it seems like there's- there's never all of us at the meeting. We're kind of sporadic, um, so I can't figure out who's where. Sure. Thank you. If- Thank you very much. Is there any other issue? Yes. Ma'am. Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Chair. Back in October, we put in here, uh, residential zoning ordinances, uh, and that was to work with the moratorium to have some cleanup in those zoning ordinances and I just wanna make sure we get to it before April so that we can have discussion o- on the definition of family that's in those residential zon- or other things in the zoning ordinances itself. Those are actually all being worked on in the moratorium work group that the Vice Mayor established. So is that a sub-committee of this group? No, it was made- Oh, it was already in committee to work on. It was... It's- it's in that moratorium work group which came out of work session, so I would presume it will go straight back to work session. Is that... You chair that, Council Member Lawless. Yeah, we can do it straight. And I think it... It didn't come out of this... The- the work group didn't come out of this committee. Right, but- but the task force's recommendations did come back to this committee which, in turn, we did not act on. We put into this. The... Which task force? The Student Housing Task Force. No, we've worked through all of those. Right. So what... Okay. And, but we didn't address two specific ones, so we could address it during the residential zoning ordinances. One would be the definition of family. The other would be the, um, um... What's the number? I see the number on there. 14 or something like that. There were two items to be addressed. They're being- they're being addressed in the small wor- the moratorium work group, so I mean- Well, that's not the motion that we made in this committee, once again, during the student housing recommendations. So, either we need to go back and resend that motion and change that- Okay. ... or we need to- Well, do you... I mean- We don't need to work on- ... I don't think they need to be heard in two committees. No, but it was already in this committee to be worked on because we all made the motion when we heard the report out, so I'm trying to figure out how the- the s- the latter motion trumps this one. Oh, Council Member Lawless. Um. Turn your... I think that... It was my understanding, because it is so... It was so laborious and overwhelming going through that, that the work group would, I thought, either probably report to this group and then we can do it, or we can take it straight to council, but we're running the timeline as you know. And some of these issues are being addressed in your building inspection task force also, so it seems like there's a lot of different approaches going on because we know there's not a single sil- silver bullet answer to any of these, so I- ... I, I don't know what to say. Perhaps what w- would be a good thing to do is to, uh, maybe, Paul, you could compile what's being discussed in the moratorium work group, what's being discussed in the building inspection task force that relate to the moratorium. And then if neither, would it suit you, Council Member Stennet, if, if there's still something that's not being attended to, that would be what is in the zoning ordinance? Well, that wouldn't the motion w- that I made 1- Family is already almost done. Well, th- Definition of family. The, the Building Inspection Task Force is coming back to this committee to report out. Uh, that's every- that's what everyone agreed to do. Mm-hmm. And the motion was made to do a review of the residential zoning ordinances so that we can tackle Council Member Martin's definition today of family in there, in January, which it, it's this meeting now. Okay. So I'm trying to figure out how another committee in the meantime got created. The council created it at a work session and asked it specifically to look at definition of family, uh, number of, you know, the definition of, um- Lodging. ... boarding house, lodging house, congregate living. There was a whole list of them. So I'm happy to l- I mean, I think we can look at it in here. It's almost finished in the work groups. So I'm not sure what you- Well- ... how, how you wanna handle that. ... maybe Paul can go back and research the motion that was made j- just to make sure we're abiding by our own motions. Mm-hmm. Because I think the motion was made, again, o- on two items in the bi- student report out, or student task force report out to put it into the residential, review of residential zoning laws in this committee. Well, that, you could do that. Because otherwise, why is that on here? And then, yeah. The, and then the moratorium work group is not supposed to report back to planning. It's supposed to report back to the council at a work session, which is where it was established. Um, and, and I do, I agree. We got a lot of different groups working on similar things. Yeah. So, um, does that more- We just need to clear it up because if it's not an issue we're going to address in the committee, then we need to pull it out. But I do think if you go back and watch the tape, you'll understand the motion was to review the definition of fraternity, sorority house- Yep. ... in there, and the definition of family in our residential and boarding houses, which we all, uh, passed and was to stay in this committee. So I just didn't want you to get that- And they're all being addressed in that work group. Right. Yeah. I, it seems like a similar thing to infill and redevelopment, that there are different, you know, work groups, et cetera in infill and redevelopment, whatever it is, task force, but we don't hear all of those in this, but it's on the agenda. Does that make sense? Well, Paul, Paul's agreed to compile all those. I mean, I, I'm glad to do whatever. Paul's agreed to compile where, what's being heard in what task force and what working group, and we'll see that we have it all covered. Can you do that sooner rather than later? By the end of the day. Oh, well. No, no. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you. Um, what was, th- one of the things I'm concerned about, Kevin, um, Co- Council Member Stennet's, uh, comments is that I, I, I don't, I'm not on any of these groups. And I think I could actually contribute a little bit, having been a real estate attorney for 20 years. Um, there are some very precarious things that you get into when trying to amend definitions in zoning ordinances. And so I, I guess I'm a little disappointed that, that none of this has crossed my desk. I think I could be of some use in this. Uh, the second thing is that the, um, uh, the commercial signage t- text amendment is ready to go whenever, uh, the chair sees, uh, is able to, to, to bring it on the agenda. I think the, uh, this was a, uh, a pass by the, the planning commission, uh, with an amendment to the original application. Um, and I made the motion to put it in this committee so that we could allow them the opportunity to pres- uh, the, the commercial, uh, um, I guess, commercial real estate community an opportunity to, to help the council understand what their, the issues are in changing the sign, the size of, of signage that has been in place in Lexington for a very, very long time. And so, um, they are ready, willing, and able to, to come at, at, uh, uh, at our convenience to be able to make that presentation. And sh- and o- at that point, we can, uh, I guess, either agree with them or not agree with them as a council in order to move it back to the full council for their approval. Thank you. I've been trying to get issues from 2007 and 2008 heard first so that we can get those moved on, and I am aware that the, um, commercial signage is ready. So, um, it looks like in February, we can clear th- maybe three of the '07 and '08, uh, two of the '07 and '08 issues and, um, one of the '09, and then perhaps do the commercial signage in March, is what we could target. So Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Chair. Just, uh, a couple of things. Uh, my recollection of those issues that were kind of leftover from the student housing issue, uh, were the same as Councilman Stennet's. Uh, I believe that we did put those in the Residential Zoning Ordinance Study Committee, and while they may well be handled in a separate committee at this point in time, I would just ask that they be presented back to the planning committee. ... as a courtesy since they were -- since they originated here and they were assigned to the Residential Zoning Ordinances Committee. Now, what's the Residential Zoning Ordinance Commi- And I may have the wri- name of the- of the- the work group wrong. The moratorium work group is the one that's been dealing with them. Is that what you mean? What's the name of- of Councilman Stennett's committee? No, H- it's just an issue in this committee. Building inspection. Residential... Review of Residential Zoning Ordinances. Right. And that's not what... Okay. I thought there was a separate committee looking at building codes- Building Inspection Task Force. Building Inspection Task Force. Is that the same as- This is- Is that the same as the, um, Moratorium Committee? No. Okay. It did go to the Building Inspection Task Force, then. No. No? There's a... The third item is Residential re- Zoning Ordinances, which is in this group. And nothing's been done on it. That was my point in bringing up the issue, is try to work on those. Right. And it- it- it- my recollection was that it was gonna come back to the Planning Committee. That- there- So, would you... So, one of the things we could do is ask the Moratorium Workgroup to bring their recommendations to this committee. That's what I was asking for. It will delay it, but it's not... It... I don't think it matters too much, does it? Well... Did you have a comment? Not really. Okay. We could ask the Moratorium Workgroup, rather than coming to the full council, to come to this committee. That's wh- Yes, that's what I was asking, if they would do that. Thank you. Okay. Um, Council Member James. I was just gonna, um, let Council Member Martin know if he's looking for some committees to be on, I could give you a few of mine and they could definitely use some of your expertise, um, in- in law. So, if you've got some free time, please let me know. I'm looking for that free time. When I find some, I will... It's- it's very difficult, but I would love to talk to you, see what- where I might be able to help- be helpful. Thanks. I s- I think I would like a motion from this committee to ask, that can go forward to the full council, to ask the Moratorium Workgroup to report back to Planning instead of the full council, since the full council's where it came from. If someone- So moved. Seconded. Council Member Feigl moved and James seconded. Council Member Blues. Since the Moratorium Workgroup was not what w- was formed by the full council, uh, am my- am I right to, uh, to understand that the Planning Committee would not be responsible for having to decide whether to move that report forward? This would be for discussion only? That's- that's exactly how I understand it. The real... This would be review and discussion with no mo- motions, because the full council is the one that set up the Moratorium Workgroup. It would still go to the full council. It would still go to the full council. Yes. And it's possible it could go to the full council sooner than it comes to Planning. In other words, for discussion purposes only, the moratorium report would come to the Planning Committee. That's my understanding. The full council enabled the Moratorium Workgroup, so only the full council could say it doesn't want to take action on the report back. Yes, Council Member James. I just have a comment on that, that I don't know if I have a misunderstanding of council rules, but any committee... I- if there's an issue presented to committee, the committee can make a ruling on that. That can go back... That can go back to the full council, then council could vote down the ruling of that committee. But there's nothing that... And maybe I'm confused on what's being proposed, but there's nothing that prohibits a committee from voting a particular way, from hearing something- Mm-hmm. If the motion is made in a committee, then it goes forward and then it just... You could have a- you could have a suggestion that comes from- a motion that comes from a committee that's voted down. That same motion could come from another group and they could- the council could vote it up, so. I- I think that's right. The issue is, because the council formed the Moratorium Workgroup, the council may get that report back sooner than Planning needs. So, Planning would only... I mean, that's a possibility. See, the Workgroup is supposed to report back to the full council. So this body, the motion is saying, "We would like the Workgroup to report here." Is timing an issue? I think it is. I think that's what you were looking- The moratorium expires April 15th. Then I think that's what we need to look at, is- is the timing being an issue? That- that would be relevant to me. Uh-huh. Paul has a comment. If you don't mind, Council Member, it's more than the April 15th deadline. The April 15th deadline, as I understand, the- the moratorium action you took- Expires. ... several months ago, that's when the moratorium expires. For you fo- And if you're- if there was a text amendment that you are proposing to the Planning Commission, you have to back that up by pro- approximately 60 days, 'cause- Yes. ... Planning Commission would take 60 days to review that text amendment that you would be proposing, u- unless I've... And if I've- if I've confused you any further, I'm apologizing because- No, no, it helps for clarity. And- and I don't know... I don't know the exact wording at the end of that moratorium, but is there anything that- that deals with the fact if there's, um, additional information or something else being sought, um, some other decision that needs to be made that is a component of that moratorium that allows it to extend? Or can there be a vote to extend a moratorium? There- there could always be a vote to extend it, but there's no language in it that says... ... that automatically extends it. It will expire April 15th. Okay. Uh, and the council's the only body that could extend it. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So the motion on the floor is to have the moratorium work group report their results back to the planning committee. Pa- Tom- Council Member Blues. Since the, since the timing is so crucial here, I- I think that we need to talk about, about a schedule and a- and about dates, because I would not want to have that report out impede the- the progress of getting the moratorium committee's, uh, recommendations to the full council. In other words, you don't wanna delay the report out. That's correct. Because as, as, uh, as Paul says, if, if, if there's going to be a text amendment recommended, then we need to move on it. Council Member Lawless, do you know when the moratorium work group will be ready to report out to someone? Uh, we meet Friday, I believe. And, uh, you know, if we get through it, we get through it. If not, it would be the next time, after the next time we meet. I'm kind of getting some additional information that I didn't have before from Council Member Martin, which I think will be very helpful. So, thank you. Okay. So does everybody understand the, the motion, which will be reported out to council to ask the moratorium work group to come back to planning committee? D- so this will, this, if passed, would come forward as a motion to council, which would in, in essence change, I believe, would change the group reporting out to the full council. Is that... Yes, Council Member James. I don't read... I don't hear the motion that way. I mean, if it, maybe there's clarity needed. I don't hear the motion saying to avoid going to council and report out only to the planning committee for the planning committee to report back, because that would not be protocol. If the- So- So what I'm hearing is, they're go along with the process to report out to council, but in the interim, the planning committee wants to hear it to be able to see what's going on from this aspect, because we were dealing with the issue. So- That's, that's my impression and that's why I'm supporting the motion. Okay. That makes sense. No matter what the timing, we'll see who gets to hear it first. Is that what you all understand? Okey-doke. Council Member Feigl. I, I just think that my motion was, I think that as a courtesy to report to the planning committee. Okay. Regardless of timing? Well, uh, you know- Yeah. ... preferably before it's presented to the council. And Council Member, were, were you finished, Council Member Blues? Well, if it's contingent, if, if, if it must come to the, to the planning committee before it goes to full council, I'm, I'm not gonna support the motion, because it does seem to me that this could be, uh, this could be an impediment, uh, when we, when we are dealing with a, with a very tight schedule. So I... And this seems to be a rather confusing thing here. We, we don't know really quite what the, uh, what the protocols are and so on. So I, I, I think I'd rather, uh, uh, vote against this motion and, and, and keep with what was our initial understanding that we have a committee assigned by the full council and that reports to the full council. Council Member James. Yeah. I just, I feel the need to, to clarify my position on it, which in no way, as, as I've said before, is not to impede it from going to council before the, um, expiration date of it. But it is an issue that relates to planning, and there's nothing... We can bring any issue forward to any committee and talk about it at any time, regardless of its status in any other thing that we're doing. It can be, if it passes, if the motion passes. So for, I think it is a relevant planning issue. There are people that watch planning waiting on the student housing issue to be talked about and discussed. Um, I, I just think it's appropriate. You know how our, how our work sessions go. It, they don't necessarily encourage conversation. And because of the way that those are guided and that we don't set our own agenda even for the work sessions, this is the committee that we can hear, converse and talk, and our citizens can see us doing that, especially the ones that are looking for information about the student housing. I think we need to be as transparent as we possibly can, 'cause the folks that care about this issue have asked us to do that. Thank you. Council Member Blues. I certainly appreciate that, but there seems to be two different understandings of what, what the motion is. Council Member Feigl understands it to mean that, that it will come first to the planning committee. You seem to be suggesting that whether it comes first to the planning committee or to the full council is not the question at all, and that it could come first to the, to the full council. So given that kind of, kind of confusion here, uh, I'm reluctant to support the, the motion. Can I -- Councilmember Feigl. Yes. Thank you. Um, I personally said I would prefer that it come here. However, if it did create a, a problem for the timing on meeting the deadline, uh, then certainly it would go to the council directly. But because these are issues that this, this committee have discussed in the past, and there does seem to be some confusion about where, where the further discussion was supposed to, to go, in terms of committee work, uh, I just feel like as a courtesy, it would, it would come here. Uh, and certainly it can go to council if, in fact, there is, um, a timeline problem there. But anything that came out of that propo- that committee would probably require two readings, and so there would be plenty of time for the planning committee to take a look at it. Uh, Councilmember Martin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, um, and I think the chair put together a, a really quite terrific timeline on the moratorium, and th- and that was extremely helpful. But as I understand the timeline, we are, we are not gonna get this passed before the moratorium expires. Is that correct? Um- Because it has to go, 'cause we're talking about a zoning text amendment that has to go to the board, excuse me, the, the, the planning commission, and then come back to the full council for, for t- for, I guess, a work session and two readings. And so I, I don't think we're ev- we're gonna make the moratorium on this text amendment for the, whate- however the, wha- whatever it ends up being. I, if I recall, we had to be... Do you recall, we had to be at the planning commission no later than the end of this month? Is that... That's about right. I th- yeah. As I, as I recall, your initial memo called for a, the second reading, probably the first council meeting you were back from break. You've obviously, uh, gone beyond that deadline, but I believe that memo also called for about a 30-day period that the council would review the planning commission recommendations. Uh, Councilmember Martin, you're right that unless council wants to just take the planning commission recommendation and run with it, you probably won't make the April 15th deadline. Um, but there's, there's a little bit of wiggle room in that memo that Councilmember Gorton spelled out, but if, if you take any longer than 10 days probably when the c- depend, again, depending on when the council initiates a text amendment, which they haven't done yet, but if they, if it went to February 15th, for example, that would blow the, the moratorium deadline out of the water, 'cause the planning commission might still be working with, with your text amendment un- with, with your text amendment by the April 15th deadline. But any, any, any much, any longer than, than the end of January, I mean, I, if I was a betting man, and I'm not, I would, I would suggest that you're probably right, that, uh, you wouldn't make the deadline. And it's, it's conceivable that if it was initiated today, you might not still make that deadline, depending on how much time the council wants to take to consider and reflect on the planning commission's recommendation back to you. And I, I don't think I answered your question, so I apologize. But, uh, there's a lot of different variables in there. Councilmember Feigl. I, I would just suggest that because this is a very, um, uh, controversial issue in our community, I can see that the council would probably extend the deadline, uh, before they would wanna see it rushed, uh, through, uh, just because I feel like it needs to have as much transparency to the public as possible, and opportunity for intput, input from the public. So I, I certainly, as a councilmember would be willing to extend the deadline, rather than see it, uh, rushed through, uh, in an expeditious manner, uh, leaving a lot of input, uh, by the wayside just to meet that deadline. Okay. Um, no one else is on the list, so, um, the mo- the motion on the floor is to ask the moratorium work group to report back to the planning committee. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. That'll be reported out in a week. Um, now, is there any other comment about any of these issues in committee? If not, do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. Thank you. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, this meeting is adjourned. Let's go ahead and call the meeting to order, if we could. First i- item on the agenda is public comment on any issues that are on today's agenda. Does anyone wish to address the council? Yes, sir. If you'll step to the podium, please, and give us your name and address. You'll have three minutes. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Uh, my name's Jim Newton. I've been a homeowner in Fayette County for 17 years now. Um, my item of concern is, uh, is the agenda item number three, the approval of the summary from last Tuesday. Um, concerns, uh, uh, page seven, item DD, authorization of an ordinance to amend Chapter 12 of the Code of Ordinances regarding housing and nuisance violations. I'm sorry. Could you repeat which item it is that, uh- DD. Okay, thank you. Um, from the agenda last week, um, part, uh, of that item was to, uh, clarify that a criminal penalty, uh, may be pursued in lieu of the civil penalty for housing violations. Um, my concern is that, uh, currently, the form letter for housing violations that, uh, code-