We have a quorum, so let us, uh, let's begin the meeting. Uh, welcome everybody to this meeting of the, of the Planning Committee. Uh, some of you may have, uh, noticed that I'm not Linda Gorton of, uh ... Linda, who, who, uh, chairs this committee has gone to Kansas, of all places, to welcome her son home from Afghanistan, where he's been deployed for the last many months. And, uh, I think she's probably having a, uh, a better time than, than we are. And we're certainly glad that her son is back safe, uh, from that, uh, uh, from that country. Uh, if you, we have two agenda items this afternoon, the residential zoning issue, which we will take up first, and the commercial, uh, signage text amendment, uh, which I, uh, I'm hoping we will be able to get to and, and open that discussion as well. And there are two different sign-up sheets at the back of the room. And if you, uh, intend to speak on, on either, uh, on either issue, uh, during the public comment period, which we'll get to shortly, uh, then, uh, please, please do sign up. Uh, regarding the first agenda item- Chair. Councilmember Stennet. Thank you, sir. In order to, um, uh, get, be able to hear the second item, I, I don't think the first item, by any means, is gonna be discussed in full today and be able to determine an outcome. I'd like to amend the, the agenda and hear the second item first. I don't think that's gonna take near as long or, or require as much time as the first item will have. So if we could do that, I'll make that motion if it ... Any discussion of moving agenda item number two to agenda item number one? Vice Mayor? So what if it does take longer? Then you said it's not gonna take as long as ... Shouldn't, but the first one probably will take the whole meeting. Yeah. I know. Right, right, right. Okay. I'm good with that. Any further discussion? Councilmember Laws? Um, I think there might be people that took off work to be here to speak on the, um, s- or left school or whatever on both of 'em. Um, I guess maybe if we could ask if there are people that have a time limit. I don't know. Thank you. Councilmember Dreams. Maybe we could see at, um, limit it at some, to be able to give, um, due attention to item number one. So if we see that it's going beyond a certain time, or like 2:00, kind of evaluate how much time is left on one particular item, um, just in case, um, so that we do, so that we're, we are able. I know that we are, as far as item number one, um, looking at some other being presented to the full council, um, that is not affiliated with this, with it being in Planning Committee. So w- I think we do need to have the, the time, uh, just ask that at 2:00 we evaluate how much time we have left available for the rest of the, uh, uh, to discuss on the text amendment for the commercial signage and then go from there, so just kinda look at the clock at 2:00 and figure it out. Okay. While we do have a motion on the floor, uh, let's see what the, uh, uh, what the committee members want to do here. All those in favor of reversing the agenda order, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Let's see hands, please. All in favor? All oppo- ... Peggy's not a member of the committee. Can the chair vote? Yeah. The, the chair does vote, yes- The chair? ... in a committee meeting. So we had four to four and the motion fails. So we'll start with the original, uh, the original, uh, number one. Mr. ... Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair. Go ahead. I had a question about t- to our, uh, um, I guess the council procedures. Did, uh, uh, uh, council members Senate, does the, does the chair vote on a straight up or down un- if there's not a tie? My understanding is that, that, that, eh, in committee, standing committee meetings, the chair does vote. Our Commissioner of Law is here if we can get a law opinion. As time goes by. I don't know whether the council- Yes. Good afternoon. I don't know whether the council rules, uh, address this. I'll try to look. It was always my understanding that the, a committee chairman would vote. So, but I'll defer to the parliamentarian. I'll take a look and see what the rules say. Okay. Mr. Chair. Vice Mayor. In the interest of compromise, and, and this might speak to Council Member James' suggestion, what if we dedicated 15 minutes to item number two, and if we go beyond 15 minutes then, and we don't resolve or have a resolution to it, then we would move to item number one? Second. Is that a motion? I'll, I'll put that in the form of a motion. Yeah. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor say aye, please. Aye. All opposed? So then we will start with item two for 15 minutes. Mr. King? Mr. Salih, thank you. If you will give us a very brief history of, of, uh, of this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, good afternoon. I have, uh, passed out to you two items, a staff exhibit, uh, which is very similar to one that was presented to the planning commission last September, and then also a final report from the planning commission regarding a text amendment that's proposed to a portion of Article XVII of the zoning ordinance dealing with real estate signs. This text amendment was reviewed by the planning commission last September and was originally requested by the Commercial Property Association of Lexington. Their proposed text amendment sought three changes to Article XVII, which is the sign ordinance portion of the zoning ordinance. The first purpose of the text amendment was to dif- differentiate by definition residential real estate signs from commercial real estate signs. Currently in our ordinance, all real estate signs are lumped together in a single definition and in a single set of size and height restrictions. The second proposed change was to allow an additional period of time for the posting of these signs once a commercial property was either leased or sold. And then the final change proposed by this text amendment, which the commission reviewed last fall, was to allow larger commercial real estate signs and also to allow them to be illuminated by a spotlight, uh, in the evening and nighttime hours. Real estate signs in our ordinance are considered temporary signs. Uh, they do not require sign permits from our Division of Building Inspection. But in the alternative, they are limited in the amount of time they can be posted on a property, and they must be removed from all properties within 10 days of the sale or the lease of those properties. The text amendment, if I could refer to the, uh, staff exhibit, I believe the text amendment for purposes of today's discussion can be summarized, rather than looking at the top of the document by the very bottom line of the document where current request, requested ZONING for LFUCG. Currently, our ordinance requires that real estate signs be limited to a total area of six square feet or about two feet by three feet in size. Uh, very typical of the, the real estate sign that you see around town, primarily in front of homes that are offered for rent or for sale. Uh, they are limited to a six-foot height and must be removed, as I said, within 10 days of the transaction. The proposed text amendment sought to allow commercial real estate signs to have a different set of restrictions, that the height be increased for those signs to 12 feet, that they be allowed to be as large as 64 square feet, which is currently the sign limitation for construction signs, uh, under our zoning ordinance. ... and also that they'd be allowed to be posted for up to 30 days after the transaction occurs. The rest of this document is information that the staff compiled for the Planning Commission hearing. We reviewed a few other city ordinances around the country and a couple of model ordinances, one from Ontario, Canada, and one from Georgia. Uh, and the staff could not find real estate signs, uh, permitted anywhere as large as 64 square feet. We did find, uh, many, uh, had a 32 square foot limitation. Uh, the Georgia Model Ordinance had an allowance for a larger sign in industrial settings of up to 36 square feet. And so the planning staff recommended an alternate text amendment on this proposal. The Planning Commission, at their hearing, heard from the applicant and from the staff and decided to forward a recommendation to the council for a modified version of the text amendment, uh, sought by the applicant, which again is the Commercial Property Association of Lexington. They voted nine to two to recommend approval of a modified text amendment to Article 17 that would still differentiate between commercial and residential real estate signs and still set up different size height standards for those two. It would allow commercial real estate signs to be up to 32 square feet, which is about the size of a sheet of plywood, generally eight by four. It would still allow for them to be illuminated, as was requested by the applicant, and it would allow them up to 10 feet in height, where the current limitation is a maximum of six feet in height. And it would still allow these signs to be erected in our community without the need for a sign permit from the Division of Building Inspection. Planning Commission had two reasons for forwarding that recommendation. The first was they did feel it necessary to allow for taller and larger real estate signs for commercial uses in our community, uh, and for mixed use and group residential projects, which are large apartment complexes and the like, uh, and that larger signs were appropriate for those properties. It also, uh, required that our restrictions for agricultural and residential properties are sufficient and should remain in effect. So the commission did recommend that this two-tiered system for residential and agricultural signs remain as we currently regulate them, and then to allow for, uh, a new type of signage restriction for, uh, commercial signs. I have brought some photos today, if you'd like to look at e- specific examples of this type of regulation, but given the short time span, I'll stop at this point and just see if you have any questions. I know there are others that wish to address you today on this topic. Council members who have, may have questions for Mr. Selle. Council Member Lawless? Thank you. Um ... Just to boil this down. Mm-hmm. Would this allow residential real estate signs, the typical ones you see- Mm-hmm. ... be placed in front of rental properties that are advertising a different rental property? Because that's a big issue, and I was told yes, and I was told no, and then I was told... So, i- w- is there anything in there that addresses that? There is nothing in this text amendment, that I'm aware of, that would permit that type of advertising. Uh, it currently is not permitted to be off-premise, if you will. Uh, the real estate sign is supposed to advertise the property for which the sign is posted. Okay. And there is no proposed change to that- Okay. ... in this text amendment as you're reviewing. And in apartment complexes, in neighborhoods, what would be the difference in what's allowed now? That would be a significant change under this text amendment. Currently, they are limited to the same type of sign that you would have in front of a single family home, which is six feet in height, six square feet in size. The typical, what I'll call the typical real estate sign. This proposed amendment would allow them to have advertising for sale or for rent, uh, for up to 32 square feet, which would be a four by eight sign, uh, and it would allow that sign to be illuminated under this proposal. That would be the same restriction, uh, as would exist for commercial property as well. Apartment complexes were included in this proposed change. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Martin? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I, uh, made the motion to bring this into committee so that, uh, uh, some representatives of the commercial property industry could maybe speak to this very briefly. Is that a- a- appropriate? I have, uh, Amy Mellinger and Al Isaac. Amy Mellinger is the President- Council Member Martin, we'll recognize members of the, the public after council members have had an opportunity to, uh, to speak and to ask questions. Okay. Uh, thi- this is their application, and I think it would help, uh, this, uh, this discussion to hear from them, but I'll speak on their behalf. Uh, a letter was sent, uh, to the council from, uh, th- uh, the Commercial Property Association, and, uh, I think that what they propose is, is three, uh, uh, items of a compromise, is that the 64 square feet ... Th- their main concern is that, first of all, this has been the practice in Lexington for, for years, and they were attempting to codify existing practice. Uh, and the, the, the compromise that was proposed, that the, the 64 square feet would be limited solely to, uh, buildings with 100,000 square feet or, or greater, uh, to sites that have two or more acres, uh, and to property in which, uh, signage would be along, uh, I guess, a public highway. And it should read for four- with, with four lanes or greater. And so, uh, uh, those, those types of things would not ... In those situations would not have the type of, uh, uh, uh, aesthetics concerns that we'd have having a very large sign- ... uh, compared to a relatively small property. Uh, things along major highways, things with rather large buildings, uh, things with rather large sites. Uh, there would be -- not be a-a-a-a disproportionate, uh, uh, size between those. Uh, the, the, uh, uh, the handout that was passed out, uh, regarding the, the, this ordinances from other industries, uh, a- and, uh, jurisdictions, the, uh, uh, Ann Arbor's a very restrictive place, I... . So, I've lived in Ann Arbor for a little while, so, uh, but, uh, um, the practice nationwide s- commercial signage is not a, a, a very, uh, a strict, uh, type of ordinance nationwide. It's a fairly loose practice and 64 sq- square feet you find very common across the country and, uh, and, and unfortunately it's just very, um, it's, it's all over the place as far as what the ordinates say and what the, the practice in those industries are. Um, and so I guess, uh, what I would ask is that, since I'm not a voting member, that someone would make a motion which would, uh, propose the, uh, the three, uh, items and compromise and... Because I think it is a fair, uh, um, compromise and, uh, they, they certainly are trying to, um, to do things that are... they're aesthetically, uh, uh, consistent with, uh, the, the community and, uh, but this would also prevent, uh, all these commercial folks from having to replace their signs, which would be a, a great deal of expense. So, uh, at this point Mr. Chair, thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, chair. Um, Mr. Salih, the, does the, um, existing article 17 speak to, uh, trees at all? Landscaping and trees? Article 17 doesn't. Uh, article 18 is generally the chapter of the zoning ordinance that talks about landscaping, landscape buffers. There is generally a prohibition in the entire sign ordinance for signs being affixed to trees. Okay. But- I guess, um, what I was looking for was a connection between the two and I'm not sure if there's a, a reference point. Um, what I want to avoid is for a tree to be removed for the purpose of being able to, um, adequately, um, uh, to place a, a sign in a strategic place that catches the eye of a driver-by or something like that. So I'm, I'm wondering if there would be an option to include, um, within the text amendment something that says that no, no trees would be damaged, um, due to the signage. Any placement of signage. I don't know if this is a, an opportunity to do that. Uh, we do see a lot of trees being removed for the purpose of signage. Mm-hmm. Um, so I don't, I don't know how I could plug this in. I'm not sure. This text amendment is so limited- Okay. ... to the type of sign. This may be a broader issue- Okay. ... or another section of the sign ordinance, especially one that has the current prohibition for signs being affixed to trees. Okay. Uh, it may be a broader issue than just this text amendment. Okay. From what you just read. All right, I'll keep that in mind. Um, can you l- help me visualize what an illuminated sign would look like? An illuminated sign would be one probably made of wood or, or a non-natural material that would have a spotlight shining on it. Okay. Probably from the ground. Okay. It would illuminate it, not from the inside out, but from the outside. From the ground or something kind of aiming up? Yes. Okay. I think I can visualize that. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Stern. So, Mr. Ali, just so we're clear, what are they allowed to do now? What size sign? The current restriction now is a six square foot sign. Uh- Okay. ... six feet high, so two by three in any dimension. On, on any commercial property? Any commercial property. That's the current ordinance. But we see signs out there much larger than that, so- Yes, sir. That's probably what has prompted the text amendment- So- ... from the applicant. ... w- so that's another, another art- or another item we're not enforcing out there, I guess. To be honest with you, I'm not sure about enforcement. I think what led to the text amendment was an enforcement action on a number of these signs. Okay, that's why... and this is your chart, right? The, the- Yes, sir. And okay, so the planning commission approved 32? Yes, sir. Okay. That's right. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Bill, what about banners? The banners fall under the size limitations or... They fall under the, what I'll call, the global limitation sizes for signs under the ordinance. They are not directly affected by this text amendment that you're reviewing, but other sections of the zoning ordinance do regulate the size of banners and in what zones banners can be placed. There was a major text amendment for banners probably about five years ago that affected the downtown business zones, professional office zones, some of the other commercial zones, and by and large those have been unchanged since they were adopted. But they're significantly larger than the, even the 64 square feet. Yes, sir. They're not... yeah. I think some of 'em have been, yes. Okay, thank you. Uh, council members, we're almost to our 15-minute limit here. Uh, as you know, we have a major agenda item that is operating under severe time constraints and we need to devote, uh, a, a good portion of this meeting to it. So do I hear a, a, a motion from a committee member on whether to continue this discussion at this time? I make a motion that we, um, would continue... or this to 1:30 and then at 1:30 we would go to the first item 'cause I think we can wrap this up pretty closely now. Discussion? All in favor? I. All opposed? ... 'til 1:30 then. Thank you. Are there other council members wish to speak on this issue right now? Chair. Yes, sir. Can I go? Council member Alliger. Thank you. I wanted to follow up with, um, what council member Martin had said, and I, I, I'm trying to get this understanding. So would we, we would have three different kind of categories. We'd have a residential real estate sign category, we'd have the commercial real estate, and then if you did the, the three, um, elements that come within that compromise and that would, would that be a third one then? If they fit into the two acres, the four lane and the 100 square feet, 100,000 square feet, then that would be, then you could go to a different... That's my understanding, yes, is the larger sign above 32 square feet would be dependent on one of those three factors. Do we know how many that would, um, take into account in the, in the county? I don't. Uh, just about every, um, big box store, Walmart or Meijer, uh, some factories obviously are gonna be that size. Um, hard to know about a number. So it has to be four lanes or greater though. I think that has to, that's also a factor in it. Yes, sir. I think there's a couple people, and I don't, I think I'm the last one to speak. If, if they could just, I think either Al Isaacs or I think Amy Mellinger's here, one of them could come up and kind of explain to me what the, the compromise would include in, in two minutes or less, I might make a motion to include this one then. Mr. Isaac, if you could give your name and address please for the record. All right, Al Isaac. And you'll have, you'll have three minutes. 771 Corporate Drive, Lexington, Kentucky. Well, I'd, I'd like the council to consider the compromise that we've offered forth, just because it fits the scale of what we're trying to do. If, if, if you take a six-foot residential real estate sign and figure out the percentage that it is to a 2,500 square foot house, if you do the same thing with a 64 square foot sign, then that would equate to about a 27,000 square foot building. So setting that limit for a 64-foot sign at 100,000 is about four times greater than, or four times less than the scale that you have for a residential sign. And I, I, I'd just like you to consider the idea that we're talking about a scale that is far less than a six-foot sign on a 2,500 square foot house. The idea behind having a larger sign on these larger buildings and the larger properties is a small sign tends to get lost and is, is not visible to somebody driving by so that they can pick the number off to give us a call and allow us to do our job. And we certainly would like to get every sign in, every commercial real estate sign in the community, uh, into compliance. Can I ask a question on that now? If, if you do the compromise, what is the, um, there, is there any permitting and what, and how long do you have to, do you have to take it down or can it stay up then permanently? What's the... The, there is no permitting the way I understand it, and it would, could stay up as long as there is property to lease or to sell on, at that particular location. Once you accomplish the job, then you have to remove the sign. And do we have a time limit on how long? Is that, would that be 30 days then or- Well, we proposed 30 because some of these signs are sunk in concrete and in weather like this, you can't really d- But the city wanted to stay with 10. The Kentucky Real Estate Commission actually says you have to immediately remove it. So it's just, we were trying to make sure whatever we came up with- Well, it looks like the one that we were given in this kind of grid here, the matrix was at 30 days after the sale. Is that correct? So would that be the same? That's what we proposed. He's correct. That was the applicant's proposal. The planning commission's recommendation to the council was that it remain at 10 days. At 10 days? And we, we can live with that. It just, if you've got a sign sunk in concrete today, it may be difficult to get it out in the next 10 days, just depending on the weather. But we can live with that. Okay. Well, in this case, I'll make, I'll make a motion that we, we accept the planning commission with a modification of the, the compromise that would allow the larger sign, um, in the three areas is if it's two acres, it's a four-lane highway, and it's over 100,000 square feet. So moved. Discussion? Council member Stanley. I just have a quick question for what about vacant property? You're not asking for it on vacant property, right? You're just asking for it on property that has a structure on it. It's developed. Now, there, there was something added in by the staff to address vacant property, but it really was not part of our initial proposal. Because, I mean, right now a vacant piece of land can only have 16 square feet. Right. Okay. Thank you. Council member Feigel. Thank you, Chair. Um, just a question. This is for, for sale, not for lease, correct? For sale or lease. Or lease. So if you had a development that, um, was completely filled and you had met your obligation except for one space, then that sign would still be allowed. Tha- that's correct. So we could be looking at a sign that's there just indefinitely. That's cor- that's correct, depending on whether there's a vacancy there indefinitely. Right. Anytime there was a vacancy, the sign would be permitted. Correct. Um, I, I think I would be more comfortable saying something like, if it was, you know, if it was 75% complete and the sign would go down or something like that. I'm just throwing out a number. Uh-huh. Just to make sure that the, that it isn't there just- ... you know, for eternity. So... Well, i- it sort of has been that way. And i- it -- From our point of view, until we actually complete the job, we still need the signage. It is still our most important way to get a property specific interested person. Um, so I- I would ask you to- to- to consider leaving it just the way it is and a- again, I'm not aware, there may be isolated pockets of problems in the city, but on a broad basis, I'm not really aware of there being a huge, uh, signage mess in the city. I- I- I'm just, I'm not seeing it as I go around the community. Council member James. Thank you, Chair. Uh, my question is for Mr. Salih. The, um, the motion includes the compromise, and I'm just curious, really, about the word compromise, um, because I'm wondering who has, who solicited the compromise. I mean, is it a compromise if its come down from a planning commission and it's to be considered by the council? Or, like, what's the basis? Compromise to me means that we're trying to, there's something that hasn't been decided yet and then we're trying to come together on a conclusion, but it seems like to me this has gone through the process in the correct way. Yes, the text amendment clearly has had a public hearing at the planning commission and the major issue with that hearing was whether or not these signs should be 30, limited to 32 square feet or allowed up to 64 square feet. I think the word compromise is one where the applicants have re-thought their application and realize that perhaps some additional limitations to the very large sign, uh, is, uh, kind of a meeting in the middle between the, the planning staff and the planning commission's recommendation and what their original application was. And so some of the minutes from the planning commission are, uh, specifically Mr., I think, um, Owens, um, and Mr. Brewer, uh, spoke on uniformity of signage and- and fairness of, you know, one company having a big sign and another company having a smaller sign. Is that, is that something... So this was discussed in the planning commission. Mm-hmm. And they still decided to go with the uniform size regardless of the size of the building? Yes, I don't think... I think generally there was a- a comment or two about the need for a larger sign with a larger project. I remember the discussion in September about a downtown building that's much larger scale than what you would find out at the edge of town, but- But the planning commission- ... the concept was considered. Okay. But the planning commission decided to go with the uniformity versus the variance in the sizes? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thanks Chair. Council member Lawless. Uh, thank you. I'll make this quick. Um, there are sign problems throughout the third district and I'm not sure that the, these changes would make them better or worse. I'm gonna support this going to full council so I can get a better grip on what it, what impact it might have. Um, thank you. Council member Gray. Vice Mayor Gray. Yeah. I'm sorry. I- I didn't hear Gray. That's all. I didn't... Uh, I'm gonna support this as well. I, you know, the, the issues that have been raised by the, um, by the commercial real estate, uh, industry are legitimate ones, at least from my point of view, in seeing other places around the country, especially when it relates to the scale of the, of the projects, of the size of the projects that, uh, Al's describing. Um, and, and if somebody's gonna invest that kind of, the funds that it takes to create a 64 square foot, uh, sign, they're not gonna do it casually. And, uh, typically they're not done without, um, a responsible design to them as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other council members? Um, thanks Chair. I- I- I will not be supporting this. I think the research that the planning staff, um, has shown us, I don't see any of the comparable cities, and they did this, um, with even metropolitan areas between 300 and 500,000, um, they're not showing any 64 square feet as far as their limitation. Um, so I- I don't see that, um, that vice mayor just spoke of. I don't, I don't see, um, the 64 square feet. And the first district... And where someone commented that it's isolated incidents, I think the, it might seem isolated to someone who's limited in their area, but we probably all have sign issues in all of our different 12 districts, and between all of that, it really does have a huge impact. And one of my, one of the areas in my district that is four lanes, um, will be seriously impacted by this and we already have extraordinary sign issues in that area, um, and this would only worsen it. Um, so I will not be supporting this moving forward because I don't think it's good legislation. Thank you. Thank you. Council member James, are we ready to vote on the, uh, on the motion? All in favor, say, "Ay," please. Ay. All opposed. No, I also vote no. The motion passes and this will go to the full council. Thank you. If we can move now to agenda item number one and... Of... In order to, uh, to introduce this, uh, uh, this item, I've asked, uh, uh, Chris King to, uh, to, to provide us with some , with some background on the history of this, uh, uh, of how, how these, uh, zone text amendments, uh, are brought forward and how they work. Chris? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, council members. I ha- was asked by, uh, Council Member Blues and Council Member Gorton to give you a brief overview of the steps and process involved in a zoning ordinance text amendment that is initiated by council. There are basically three different ways a text amendment can be initiated. Planning commission has the authority to initiate one, the council has the authority to initiate one, and as you just saw in the last case you discussed, an, an interested property owner or group can prepare a text and file an application and have it reviewed through the process. But the question at hand, uh, on the residential additions issue is one that is anticipated to be a council-initiated action. And under state statute, it has some special rules and considerations that I'd like to share with you. Um, I have put at your place this little exhibit, the same thing that you see up here, and I'll just spend just a couple of brief minutes going over it. Um, a- and it is very sketchy, and deliberately so. Within any of these, there are a lot of, uh, subdetails, but there are basically four steps. The first step is you have to have a text. So there has to be some preliminary work, some discussion, to actually draft the language that then would move to step two. And on this particular issue, that's really where we are now. And in your ad hoc group or, um, a subgroup that you had meeting and others, they have been considering what language to put forth before the full council for step two. And step two is the first official action that the council would take, and that is to vote to initiate the text amendment and forward a specific text to the planning commission. So presumably, if this moves forward, that would be your next step. There would be a proposed change in the law that would be considered by the council, and the council would vote whether to formally initiate that or not. If the council does take that action, under state law, the next step is that it is referred to the planning commission. And within 60 days of the date the council votes to initiate the text amendment, the planning commission must conduct a full public hearing with full notice, um, advertising under your rules, a copy of the proposed text is forwarded to every neighborhood association, an ad is placed in the newspaper, et cetera, to give folks an opportunity to see what is being proposed and to appear before the planning commission, uh, at a required public hearing where folks in favor, opposed, or with other ideas can all, uh, have their say in a public forum. Again, within that 60-day time period, the planning commission would then vote and make a recommendation back to the council, which may be a recommendation of approval of your language, it could be disapproval of your language, or it could be a recommendation that you consider some modification to your original language. That information is communicated back to the council, and then as a council, you have any number of options in terms of what you do with the legislation that you initiated. You could immediately put it on your dockets for first and second reading, you could refer it to a committee, one of your committees to discuss and make recommendations back to full council, or you could conduct your own public hearing, fully noticed public hearing, or you could also allow public comment as a, as opposed to a full notice to public hearing. So you have those options, and then only at the conclusion of that, once you have given first and second reading to an ordinance, would the text amendment then become law. So again, where we are in this process is still in the step one phase, where you are trying to consider what language you will put before the full council. Thank you, Chris. Council members, do you have any questions for, uh, Mr. King? Seeing none, thank you very much. And Ms. Boland, if you would , if you would come forward and, uh , and help us, uh, help us understand and, uh, the, the proposed changes here in our packet that would change some of the definitions related to, uh , uh, particularly related to, to, to family, to boarding houses, to lodging houses, functional family and so on, and what it is that, that the changes in these definitions are proposed to address. Um, I was told you were interested in a timeline, um, from the time of the passage of the moratorium until it expires and how this has progressed. Is that something that you wanted to look at, or did you want me to just get into the definitions? I, I think let's start with the definitions, and if we, and if we need to talk about the... ... you know, the time constraints, uh- Okay. ... we can get to that later. Well, in the course of discussing, I think this, this initially came up, um, uh, in, during the summer, and I know in August, uh, the law department did open a file to work on the problem of the vinyl boxes, that we were getting a lot of complaints from single family and two-family residential neighborhoods about destabilization, uh, they felt, of their neighborhoods, and wanted, uh, uh, the council to, to look at that. And there were a couple of different possibilities that were discussed, uh, I believe initially at a meeting in July with planning and several council members and law and, and I think some neighborhood representatives there. And it was determined there were two ways to try to go at this. One was to look at some kind of a floor area ratio or, or physical, um, restriction on additions, and another possibility would be to make our definitions of family and boarding house and lodging house and those congregate living type facilities more clear so that they could be better enforced by building inspection, um, as far as identifying what is an appropriate family or family equivalent unit to live in a single family residence. So, as part of that, I think both of those aspects of the problem were, um, were pursued. I think planning was mostly involved in the floor area ratio, setbacks, things like that, and preparing alternatives on that. Um, and, uh, I began looking at various materials on the definition of family and these other congregate living facilities throughout the country and what has withstood legal challenge and what has not. Um, to that end, I obtained an article from the Division of Planning, which I think was, um, sent out to you by the law department, um, that dealt with a lot of the contradictions and, and conflicts and legal cases analyzing family definitions and what was constitutional, um, not only under the federal constitution, which has upheld some pretty strict definitions, as opposed to the state constitutions are often more restrictive as far as what can be done in the way of defining family for zoning purposes. Um, based on that review and also an article that was provided to us by Council Member Martin that was prepared by the attorney general of the State of New York, which also delved into these same, um, concepts and problems, we developed a, a model definition that was based on those two articles and the models that they had proposed as withstanding scrutiny, and yet, uh, seemed to be the most effective in controlling the density issues, uh, facing single and two-family residential neighborhoods. And of course, land use is supposed to be a density issue. It is supposed to try to alleviate the adverse impacts of the use of one property upon its neighboring and surrounding properties. Not really what's going on inside the house, but the density, the number of people there, the, the comings and the goings and, and these kinds of impacts, which is what was generating our citizen complaints. So based on that, we came up with a definition, um, as proposed by those models and as has been upheld several times, uh, by the New York courts and also by, uh, a court in Michigan and I think several other states, which proposed a limit of, uh, no more than a certain number of adults living together, and this range is in, in what I've seen from, from three to five, somewhere in that range. And it was felt that if it is that number or below, we are not getting the adverse impacts, we have the density controls that will protect the, uh, character of the single family neighborhood. That is what these other jurisdictions have found in exploring these same issues, and therefore we weren't going to look at the form of the family, the relationship, you know, because we are controlling density. If it was above that number, obviously, um, the intent under the constitutions, both state and federal, is to allow, um, freedom of association and people to form families, whether they be traditional or not, so there is, uh, an ability for a group of adults larger than that preset number to rebut this presumption that greater than that number would not be a typical functioning family, and they can come in and apply to the Board of Adjustment and they can show that they are a stable family unit, they operate as a single housekeeping unit, they have common goals, they aren't just together for a temporary purpose, and therefore they're not going to have any more impact on the neighborhood than a traditional family would. And then, um, having established that, they would be granted a conditional use permit recognizing it is very appropriate for them to live in a single family residential setting. So that was the view of the draft that we proposed. Um, there have been several meetings on it by the work, uh, the, the, uh, task force, moratorium task force, and, um, then there was a proposal to bring it to council, which apparently then it was referred over to this committee to examine them. Thank you very much. Are there questions for Ms. Boland? Hmm? Council Member Lawless? Thank you, Dr. Chair. Um, do you have a copy of the original lodging house ordinance? We have... Is that... I don't have it in my pocket, but- What we have in our current zoning ordinance? If you give me just a second, I do have it. Okay. I don't know if this is dark enough. I'm gonna try to put it on the overhead. Um, this, uh, was an exhibit we prepared for use at a hearing, and we ha- we are showing our current definitions of boarding house, lodging house, and family. While they're doing that, I think it's very important for people to understand that when we talk about a definition of family, as it re- in this kind of ordinance, it's as it relates to, um, zoning. In other words, if you have single family zoning, you have to have a definition of family, and we currently have one. If you have industrial zone, you have to describe what industrial is. And that is for the purpose of zoning and density only. So that- that's one clarification I'd like to make. Um, and I'll let somebody else go. Are you, uh, are you finished t- testing? Thank you. Council Member Fico. Thank you, Chair. Um, in looking through the, the definitions and all, all of the material that you provided, I just wanted to ask a few questions about what the Board of Adjustment is going to use to make the determinations that this is a functional family. The things that are listed here is, uh, include, um, sharing a single household budget, members prep- prepare food and eat together regularly, members share in the work to maintain the premises. Some of these are going to be very difficult for the Board of Adjustment to determine. Do we have any, any other board that is... has a comparable, um, role? Well, I think the problem is the Board of Adjustment is, um, an entity that is created for the purpose of applying and interpreting the zoning ordinance, and, and customarily makes... is compelled to make a lot of subjective decisions, and it is created by statute, and we may run into problems with KRS 100 by creating, um, a- an entity that isn't provided for in that. Um, it's certainly something we could research, but those aren't the only criteria. I mean, that is a suggestion from one of the models that I used. We have since, for instance, um, looked at a, an ordinance that was just adopted in August 2009 in Oneonta, New York, um, in response to litigation where their previous definition did not stand up. And they have several other criteria that they recommend to also be considered, such as voter registration, driver's license, motor vehicle registration, filing of taxes, the existence of summer or vacation residences. Um, that's certainly something that can be looked at in terms of what criteria that we would want, um, the Board of Adjustment to consider. It also would not be restrictive. They don't have to choo- they don't... would not have to establish each and every one of those criteria, nor would they be restricted to those criteria in presenting their case to the Board of Adjustment. And certainly, that's something that, you know, uh, uh, anyone can help us to come up with what criteria we feel would be appropriate. I would just have one follow-up question, if that's okay. Is, is what you're suggesting as, uh, further, um, consideration, is that included in what we're looking at today to make a decision on? We did not include all those, all of those materials. Now, you understand even if this is, um, initiated in concept by council, um, planning staff would probably be spending considerable time still researching other ordinances such as the Oneonta, New York, and determine whether they felt anything else needed to be suggested. Um, you know, as a law department, I reviewed several and I view- reviewed those that made the courts and became a legal issue. But I think the planning division also has a very large resource available to it and may be looking at even more breadth of what, um, factors have been considered. But conceptually, this concept of a, an initial definition that creates a rebuttable presumption and then an ability for a group to come in and show that they are a family is really the concept that we are proposing in this. Well, is all of this document just conceptual then? Well, I think that it is... it could be adopted in its current form, but there will be hearings, um, and I'm sure there's gonna be other input. Um, as you're aware, the work group that has worked on this has been relatively small to come up with a, a working document. I think it's up to this committee whether they would want to forward it in its current form, whether they would want to make other suggestions. I think at this point, it is, it is up for discussion and change and amendment. Well, I, uh... If I could c- continue, just one second. Um, I, I really have read some of the things that the law department sent out, and, and I found one that, thing that I think is really quite interesting, and this was in the, um, American Planning Association's document. It talks about, uh, instead of zoning everything out, you zone it in, but you make a place for it. And I, I think that's a pretty good concept, because one of the things that I'm concerned about as we handle the density issues right around the university... ... is that, um, w- whatever the, the density ends up being, those students are going to be displaced from that area, and I want to know where they're going to go. I don't want to just move the problem from one place to another place. I wanna know where they're going to go. And so I would propose that we take a look as we go through this process of identifying another zoning category as student housing. Uh, I just feel like that if we don't try to prepare the city to deal with this problem, and, and be proactive instead of reactive, then we'll, we'll just be back at the table in a few months after th- th- this issue moves to another neighborhood. And that is a possibility that would involve, um, a, a text amendment to create that zoning category, and then it would require a map amendment to impose, um, those particular zones, and that is a possibility. Another thing to look at would be that in an R3 zone, which is also a residential zone, boarding and lodging houses are permitted. Um, there could be some looking at whether we would want to do anything with our regulations on R2, which is already two family. Um, of course that means in a duplex you could have this, um, maximum number in each side of the duplex before you'd even have to apply, so you'd already have, um, potentially six, eight, or 10 people on that property. But those are certainly all things that I'm sure planning would be able to get you a lot of information on, looking at where, for instance, R3 zones are around the university so that they could have congregate living facilities there, determine whether there was sufficient in that regard. Uh, is it, is it app- appropriate to make a motion that we pass on along, pass along a recommendation to consider another zoning category of student housing? Is that appropriate? If y- if you wish to make a motion, that is fine. I would like to, to move that we do that. The motion is to, let me understand this, is to create, is to, is to ask the council to create a, a, a zoning text amendment creating a student housing zone? Is, am I right on this? Well, no, I'm, what I'm suggesting is that as this document moves forward in all the definitions that are going to be considered by the planning commission, and then further by the council, that in addition to the definitions that we are going to consider as this goes through the process, I would like to see another definition be considered as well. And that would be to address student housing. So let me- So I'm not asking the council to actually prepare a text amendment. I'm just asking that, that this additional zoning category be considered as a possibility as, as this goes through the process. Does that make sense? Can I ask one question maybe that would clarify? Were you saying that in a d- were you saying that, not to exclude this, but in addition to start working on creating a regulatory scheme for a student housing zone so that perhaps planning and law could work together and bring something back to this committee along those lines? Is that what you want it to do? Well, in concert with this, in concert with this document, that we are going to be considering, because this is going to have an impact if this is passed by the council. This is going to have an impact on where the students will be moving to, and what I want to try to find out, what I want to try to determine ahead of time is, where will they move to? And if we have a category of, of zoning, if we zone for student housing somewhere, then we know where they're going to move to. It's our understanding you're just wanting to make sure that they're going to have a place to live if they are over the capacity in the R1 and R2 zones. We wanna make sure there's some place around the university where they will be able to obtain housing. Correct. Okay. So, but, but, still I'm, I'm trying to see how this, this relates to the, the definitions here since, since there has, there's no motion to move this forward to council at this, at this time. So you're... Let me, uh, remind myself here. We're going to send this to council, correct? And then it goes to the planning commission. Yeah. Well, but that hasn't been, been decided at this juncture. Okay. Then if it goes to the council. I, I'm, I'm wondering whether it might not be, uh, you know, a bit cleaner if we, if, if, uh, if, if there is eventually a, a motion to move either of these definitions or some version of them forward to then add, add that proposal at that time. Okay, what, I will do this, I will withdraw my motion until we've made a determination about what we're going to do with this document, and then I will amend that. 'Kay. Thank you, and- I withdraw. ... and the second withdraws. So thank you, and we'll have to keep this in, in mind. I think this will, y- you know, can enter the mix of, of discussion. Council member Dis- uh, Stennet. Thank you, Chair. G- going back to the original motion, uh, of this topic being placed into the planning committee, the motion was made to put this into committee to address two things, number five and number seven, the student housing task force recommendations, which were the definition of family and fraternity and shorty definitions. That's it. So the, everything else that's in here, uh, I believe was put in here by Council Member Laws that we're addressing, so I'm not sure- well, then I'm not sure where the rest came from. But going back to what was originally put into committee to address today was the definition of family. And the one you had up there, um, was our current definition, correct? That's correct. And what are we doing to actively enforce that definition? What are we doing now? Yes. Um, we are currently sending out notices to properties where we have either received complaints or in some way, shape, or form it's come to our attention that there are a large number of adults, um, living in a facility that do not appear to be a family. Um, we have sent out notice letters to some of those property owners, and they are being asked to contact Division of Building Inspection. I think at this point, the majority of those that we have sent letters out to that have come to our, um, attention have, uh, contacted us back and they've been asked to provide documentation on leases, um, the number of tenants in the properties, and in what way they comply with our current definition of family. We're trying to, um, get that information from the landlords now to see how they fit within our current definition. And how many are we talking about that we've sent letters to, or you, or we've been notified that are violating this definition? I mean, are we talking tens, tens, hundreds? W- we can get that back to you. I don't think it was... It's not in the hundreds, but, um, I think the properties involved may be anywhere from 25 to 50. I haven't been involved in that specific, um, aspect of it. I know what's going on, but I haven't been involved in the statistics, but we can get that for you. So are we keeping the, the data? Is someone keeping track of the properties, the address? Building inspection. And so they're currently tracking this. Are they tracking the, the documentation they're receiving, the leases, et cetera, so if they get another complaint they can already have- Yes. ... something to verify what we've looked at as evidence? They currently now till, have until the end of this week to provide all that information. It will be kept in files by address. And that will be kept in building inspection, correct? Yes. So given the, the current enforcement efforts, if we change anything on this committee or change the definition of family, are all these properties that are currently either violating or, or living under this, are they grandfathered in? It would be my position initially that what we are proposing in the text amendments is to clarify what we have always held that a family should be, that if anything, by setting a number of anywhere from three to five, we are, in fact, if anything, making it more lenient than it was before as opposed to more strict. And therefore, uh, to be grandfathered in, you have to be a legal non-conforming use. The issue would be, were they ever legal at the time they began? Obviously, the opposing position will be, yes, they were, they've been living that way for years, "We were legal until you put this number in there, and therefore we should be grandfathered in." That will be a legal issue, but I do think we have a good position on that. Well, an- and that's the, the crux of our decision because, you know, if we change an ordinance, i- it's not gonna get to the areas or, or the reason why we're here today, where we arrived at the density issues and the, the use issue. Um, so you know, if you, if we're talking about some of these will be grandfathered in, that may not do what we intended to do ultimately. We may still have a problem. So that brings us to the point Council Member Feigl was talking about. How do we recognize these areas for truly what they really are today, what they've evolved to? Um, and that's looking at different zoning category. If we were to then create a different zoning category, change the zones for certain areas, I know we've done it before on this council, would that still grandfather them in? I- if we changed the zone from a R1, R2, to a, to a- If we change the definition of family, and if a court were to hold that we had altered it such that anything preexisting was grandfathered in, it wouldn't make any difference what zoning categories we created. Yeah, I'm not talking about changing the definition of family, I'm talking about changing the zoning category such that that category has a different definition altogether, doesn't even necessarily include the word family. I believe that that would not create a grandfathering if we are creating entirely new terms and new definitions- That's fine. ... under a new zoning. Um, the, the issue in all practicality may be getting the rezoning if you have... Because it would have to be a zone change of multiple p- properties that would have to be initiated by either the planning commission or by this council, and so th- you're gonna have some property owners that are in favor, some property owners included that are not. Um, but I do agree with you that if it is a whole new zoning regulation for a new zoning classification, I do not believe there'd be any grandfathering. Okay. Well, let me take this back. When you downzone, which is something this council has done frequently- Recently, yes. ... to help preserve neighborhoods, anything that was a legal use prior to the downzoning has to be permitted to continue until that use is voluntarily discontinued or abandoned. So- But I, I don't think that would be the s- the point in this. I don't, I think it would be more of an upzone, so to speak, for lack of a better term. I think any change we make is going to stand some risk of grandfathering. I think that a clarification of an existing definition is probably the best legal position to prevent that. ... and actually affect, not a change, but an enforceable zoning ordinance. But it's, it... We're always gonna be at that risk, and that's because of the US Constitution that prevents us from taking property. If someone has a property right, we can't just take it away from them. That's why the grandfather exists. One thing I, I've been thinking about, and it, and that, um, Mr. Askew pointed out to me is that, um, one possibility without creating any kind of a new definition or new zoning classification is that an R-3 is a residential zone that allows boarding houses, lodging houses, the new definition of fraternity or sorority house. Those uses would be permitted principle uses in an R-3 zone up to eight, I believe it's a pr- principal permitted use. Above eight, it is a conditional use. But either way, those uses would become legal then in those zones. So we could change our definitions, and if we felt that one area was, had become so, um, such a large percentage of it being used for student housing on a, a congregate level, there is always the possibility of doing a zone change to R-3 to recognize the actual use of that neighborhood. And this definition of family applies to every residential zone we have? It applies everywhere, yes. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Stennett. Uh, Council Member Lawless. Yes. Um, first of all, um, I've been concerned from the beginning that this was the only definition that I was ever provided by the law department. It was prepared, you said you had had meetings with different council members, et cetera, and, um, so I wanna be clear that this isn't the, um, Zoda that I prepare, pr- prepared and brought forward. Um, I think that one of the things that we are dealing with, it isn't about students. It is about density, and it is in almost every district, if not every district, in this city, um, including some in your, in the Fifth District over in, on the other side of Main where I live, uh, Kenwood. Um, Council Member Stennett, I got a call from somebody who has, um, lived in his home for several years, and the, uh, person moved away and they have now rented it to eight adults and it's a mess. Um, is there... I don't think there's, uh, any district that isn't impacted by this, and it's not about students. It is about density. And I think in, in retrospect, many of us would probably have, it might have been better if instead of a student housing task force, it had been a rental property task force. Um, last week on Craigslist, a newly renovated property on, at 205 Westwood Court was advertised on Craigslist. They had been given a permit to build, um, an addition with five more bedrooms in June, newly renovated, nine bedrooms, four baths, perfect for fraternity or sorority house, up to 18 occupants on Westwood Court. I don't think there is anybody that believes that that is proper single family use. So we do, uh, do agree that we need to put a number on what is reasonable and single family residential use and lodging or rental property, but it doesn't impact just students. And certainly, um, you know, zoning for student living, what are you gonna do about all the other populations in all the other districts? So that being said, I would like to know what the, if there's been any research done on what the Kentucky Supreme Court might constitutionally look at with this. And I would also like to see some other versions other than this. Um, the z- the f- you know, the Federal Supreme Court up- upheld the one in New York, and then the Michigan State Supreme Court, uh, nullified it, so I think that we might move this forward in some way, but I think it still needs work. I still think there are loopholes and, um, problems with it, and certainly we need to put a number on R-1 and R-2 zones. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Lawless. Council Member James. Thanks Co- thanks Chair. Um, Rochelle, uh, talk to me a little bit... Explain to me a little bit about the role of the lease in all of this, because evidently that is the way that a landlord would prove one thing or the other, but what about in the instances where there is no lease? How, how relevant are, would be any changes based on that? Well, the only reason we were asking for the lease document was, it's only one indication, it's not by itself going to be- Okay. ... a yes or no. Okay. But it is an indication if it is, um, well, obviously when you enter into a lease with a typical family, you're going to have either one parent or both parents signing it and none of the children or other people in the family are signing it. Okay. A landlord doesn't say each person who's living in this property must come in and sign the lease. Um, if you do have one lease for the entire house for a set one monthly payment in this amount and then everybody signs it, arguably that is showing that they are functioning as a single housekeeping unit. But- Mm-hmm. ... that is not the end all be all. By the same token, if you had six different leases, six different tenants and each one signed one lease, that probably would be an indication that this is not a typical single family dwelling. So it may or may not give us all the information we need, but it's one of several factors to look at to try to determine whether these are two or more persons customarily living together as a single housekeeping unit. And at this time, that's the definition that building inspection has to try and enforce. Okay. So the subsections that are beneath, I'm looking in our packet under, like say number one, for boarding or lodging house and you have A through F, not all of those would have to be met, all of those, um, factors that shall be considered, it would just have to be kind of a combination of a few of them. That's correct. I mean, you know, I think that the wording that we have in our current definition makes it sound as if, if you meet one of these criteria, you're a lodging house. I don't believe that was ever the intent. I think these were all factors to be considered and so, uh, we had proposed in the course of this group task force to alter that to be the factors to be considered as characterizing whether it is in, a lodging house as opposed to a family residence. Okay. So, yeah, I mean those are factors to be considered, but no one, I mean, as people have pointed out, if you have teenage children that say, "This is my room. I want my privacy. You're staying out. I want a lock on my door." Right. That doesn't suddenly mean that you're a lodging house and not a family. Okay. And, and who's the determining person of those factors? Who's gonna hear that? Well, in essence, the initial decision will have to be made by building inspection at, that is the entity that is designated in our zoning ordinance as the enforcement- Okay. ... um, uh, entity for the zoning ordinance. However, any person who disagrees with a dec- any decision of building inspection has a right within 30 days to appeal that to the Board of Adjustment and then get their hearing before the Board of Adjustment. Okay. So building inspection can make that conclusion from, um, externally as well? Or, like, they would have to be guessing if they weren't allowed entry into the residence? Right now, the course we have proposed is to contact people where we know there is a, uh, we know there are a very large number of bedrooms or we know from, um, surrounding complaints there seem to be a very large number of people living there. If we are not contacted by the landlord or they refuse to give us any information, our recommendation at this point has been, well, then issue a notice of violation and hopefully they will come before the Board of Adjustment and present- Okay. ... this information and we can determine whether they're, you know, they're fine, they're in compliance or whether there's a problem. Okay. I mean, that's, uh, that's about the best we can do is try to get sufficient information. Okay. Well, I, I will say that for the propose, proposes, um, proposals for the amendments, I do, I love the fact that there was strong consideration, uh, given to the Freedom of Association Act. I think that's very important and I was look- I was waiting to see this, to look for that, because we all have our own definitions of our own families. So I think that that's great. Um, and I love the, the detail, um, that's considered here as well. I think it's, it's really important, um, that we address that. I do, um, agree with Council Member Lawless when she spoke on, uh, it's just not a student issue, it is a density issue and I, and I have, you know, four in my mind right now that aren't student related at all. Um, but I'm a, I will say, um, to the committee members as well as to, to you, Rachelle, and anybody in planning, um, R-3 even has its capacity. So where a lot of my district is R-3, um, we're busting at the seams too at times, um, especially in the places where there's not leases and there's lots of people living there. Um, one of the things I'd like to see addressed are, um, um, boarding or lodging houses that worked, work almost more like a fraternity house maybe. So they're owned by an organization or something like that, so maybe there wouldn't be a lease. Maybe there'd be some kind of cooperative type of agreement going on. Um, but I don't know how to work that in and I'll have to speak with you directly about kind of the, an example. I think, I think we kind of have, have tried to look at unanticipated facilities of that sort by ha- adding, as a proposed definition, a definition of congregate living facility, which includes fraternities, sorority, lodging, boarding, or other congregate living arrangements. So, and, and that's why, unfortunately, with every legal, um, issue that we looked at, every court case, every, um, zoning ordinance we looked at, it always starts with family. Because if it's a family, we're not gonna split up families and determine where they have to live. And so if they exceed this number, then we have to look, are they a functional family or are- ... or do they fall within one of these specific definitions, or are they just another form of congregate living facility that is just too dense to be in that zone? So, I think we've tried to do that. There were two thoughts in adding that congregate living facility. One was to encompass arrangements that we may not have anticipated, but they do not fit as a family. Right. And the other is to bring in some continuity of terms with the building code, because there are safety issues in the building code that apply to congregate living facilities. Yes. And that's the term they use. Yes. So we kinda wanted to give notice also to, um, property users that there may be another set of code requirements for safety purposes that they'll need to look at. Okay. That's helpful. And, and talking about that, I'd heard somewhere that there ... Is there a limitation of boarding and lodging houses for certain areas? Can you not have so many- I think it's a principal permitted use is allowed up to and including eight residents. If it's more than eight, then they can come before the Board of Adjustment, and there's no limit. The Board of Adjustments can determine how many people are appropriate to live at that property without having an adverse impact on the area, so that is a case by case basis. Okay. Let me clarify. Not on that particular piece of property, I mean in a neighborhood as a whole. So you, can you have ... Can my whole neighborhood, if it's in an R3, every single house be a lodging or boarding house? Tha- That's correct. There is no separation requirement. There's no limitation. Unless you get up to exceeding eight, and then they may say, "Well, because every property around you is a boarding house and has eight, it's really not appropriate for you to come in and have more than eight, because this area's already saturated." Okay. So if it's eight or less, you're correct, there is no spacing requirement. It can be every property. And see, I think, committee, I think that's something we need to look at, because if we're gonna say, "Don't worry about it, we've got R3," we need to look at the impact of that density, um, in that area. So, um, that's, uh, something to be aware of. Also, just my last question, on section six where it talks about the definition of fraternity/sorority house, um, one note, um, that I have here is, um, the terminology is that has been officially recognized by the college or university. I do- I don't know enough about the college life. I'll find out here in a couple years when my daughter goes, but I'll know enough about what's defined by university versus, can I just start a group myself? Um, I think there ... I, I don't know a whole lot about it either, but I think there is, um, an organization or a, um, a division at UK, um, and in fact I think nationally, an organization that there are nationally-recognized fraternities and sororities. Um, that is a definition that planning came up with, but I think there is a way to determine whether this is a university-sanctioned fraternity/sorority. Okay. And if it is not, then it's a congregate living facility. Okay. Whether it be boarding, lodging, or one of those that falls within the group term. But I think that there, there are, there is paperwork that, um, is available if they are a recognized fraternity or sorority. Okay. Thank you, Rochelle. That was good information. Thank you. And Chair, I w- I will just, um, similar to Council Member Feigl's suggestion as we move forward, I, I would like to, um, also include some kind of complimentary, um, language that would speak to how many lodging houses, lodgings/boarding houses are allowed, um, in particular R3 areas as a ramification of, of this, um, possible passage. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Martin? Thank you, Chair. Um, this is really one of the most difficult areas in the law. This is, uh, the source of, uh, a massive amount of, of litigation just across the country. Um, it, it, it brings up very difficult questions of equal protection, of due process, um, of the Fair Housing Act and things like that. And so I, I applaud the folks who have been working on this. It's a very difficult area to work in, and, uh, it's, it's difficult. People have a lot of, um, um, personal feelings about, about this issue as well. Um, I guess the, the, the one concern I have, and I'm, I'm trying not to stir up the pot a- a- a- any more than it already is, but, uh, and I've expressed this to other council members. Um, I, I, I am, do not have a great level of confidence that, that this ordinance would, would not result in the existing uses being grandfathered. I think we've got a, a very, um, um, you know, big question about, uh, about, if we adopted a completely new definition of family, what exactly would be allowed to, to, to continue to exist? And maybe that's a solution, I don't know, but, uh, I, I do think that the, that that's a, you know, a, of a bit of a concern. And, uh, and I, I, I too want to see this, this resolved in a way that, that I think is gonna be, you know, both, uh, protect the single family neighborhood, 'cause they've asked us clearly for some help, um, but also, uh, to be fair to, to folks who've come down and got permission to, to do something. So, uh, it's a difficult area and, uh, um, uh, and I, uh, uh, applaud folks for, for working on it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Council Member Martin. Unless there are other comments now from council members, we do have, uh, five persons who signed up to, um, to speak to the committee. And if there are, uh, if there, there are others, there's a sign-up sheet on the, uh, on the back table, and I encourage you to, uh, to sign that and we can, we can bring you forward. Uh, the first, uh, first speaker on our list is, uh, is Dick Murphy. Welcome, Mr. Murphy. Uh, if you'll give us your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes. I'm Dick Murphy, 250 West Main Street, and I thank, uh, Kevin Martin and Dave Burton are willing to yield their time to me. I think they're both signed up as well. Uh, they're rep- they're with the same organization that I'm here representing. So we've got three times three now, and nine minutes. Nine minutes, yeah. And I did, um, I know Ryan Smith, who is the president of the UK Student Government Association, was here. He had a class at 2:00, and he had to leave, and he want- just wanted us to relate to you that he was here, wanted to participate, but did have to leave today. Um, well, thank you for letting us, uh, address this. The, uh, um, I am representing the Greater Lexington Apartment Association and the University Area Housing Association, which are working on this. Both those groups are nonprofit organizations which, uh, are- were promo- were founded to promov- promote responsible housing ownership in Lexington. They represent over 18,000 houn- housing units here in Lexington and Fayette County. We want to make clear to you, we are not here to endorse some of these extreme examples of large final editions that you have heard about. The one that Miss Lawless mentioned about nine bedrooms and 18 people. We are not here to, uh, endorse those or to, uh, uh, deal with those issues at all. We understand those concerns. We also think it's critical that two groups, uh, be involved in this, in addition to us. We want to be involved. We think we have a lot of experience that will help. And those are the students, number one. Mr. Smith had been here. Uh, number two, the Human Rights Commission, which has a lot of concerns over, uh, fair housing issues as well. Uh, I wanted to talk to you about the background and why we're here and why a lot of our members are concerned about this. If you could put the slide back on there that shows the definition of family that was up there before. Um, I know my name's got, uh, kicked around a little bit in this discussion because I had the, uh, good fortune of serving in the law department 30 years ago. 30 years ago, and uh, I can hardly remember stuff I did back then, but I wrote an opinion, I think back in 1979, which was passed around as part of the student advisory task force that discussed exactly this question. Because back then, I was the attorney doing the planning commission and building inspection work. Now, I think the definition is exactly the same today as it was then, and if you look at that, there is no upper number of the number of people who may be in a family. It just says a person living alone or two or more persons customarily living together as a single housekeeping unit and using common kitchen facilities, and I'm not including this group. I think the basic language of that has remained the same for at least 40 years, since before I was there. And at that time, the question was, well, is there... Can we, can we just say no to somebody who has a particular number? And the answer was that no. No, you can't say no, because this is the definition, and those are the criteria. Customarily living together, using common kitchen f- uh, common kitchen facilities. For many years, the criteria then was kitchen facilities. We had a lot of debates at the Board of Adjustment. Well, is a sink and a refrigerator a kitchen? Is a microwave and a range a kitchen, or do you have to have two or three of those? That sort of thing. Uh, but in th- so th- I think consistently, this government has con- has interpreted that there was no upper limit through the, I think there's been at least four chief building inspectors since then who have consistently interpreted the same way. In 1997, I think the, uh, the ordinance about lodging houses was amended to say that five or f- more persons constitute a lodg- a lodging house. But in my representation of property owners through that, that was never interpreted to say that there was a limit on the number in a family. A lodging house or a boarding house is a little different. It's traditionally something where, okay, you rent room number one, there's a big one on your room. You rent number two. If you want to pay extra, you can get meals. You don't have to have any association with each other at all. You come and go as you want. You never have to talk to anybody else who lives in this building if you don't want to, if you don't want to buy rooms. That's a lodging house. That was never drafted onto family. That didn't mean a family had a limit of five, and it was never interpreted that way. Now, our problem is that we have a lot of members who came down and thought they were doing a service to this community by providing good, safe, quality housing to students and others. They came down and they have spent a lot of money fixing up houses to supply housing to students and to others. Now, suddenly, they feel threatened because we feel the interpretation has changed.