Um, we have a quorum. And, um, we're here for the planning committee meeting of March the 2nd. And the council finished its police disciplinary hearing at 11:30 last night, and there's a rumor going around that Julian Beard slept here. So, if we seem to be moving a little slow, it may have to do with that. Um, we have our residential zone issues, residential addition issues. I'd like for us, toward the end of our meeting, to take five minutes to scrub the outstanding issues, 'cause we have several changes. And then I'd like for, if, if the committee, um, will agree to this, I'd like for us to have about 15 minutes at the end of the meeting for any public comment. I know we've had several hours of public comment, but there may be some more. So there is a sign-up sheet at the back of the room, if you'd like to make comment. So, with that, um, we'll go ahead and get started. And, uh, committee members, what I'm envisioning is we'll work our way through these, uh, possible ordinance amendments. And, as most of you know, the mayor has had a meeting with landlords and neighborhood, uh, folks. And there's another meeting scheduled tomorrow to work through some of these issues. So, um, what the mayor has talked about is, uh, just as we go through our issues and, uh, either vote them up, or vote them down, or change them, he will then, um, be to a point after his meetings with folks to potentially insert some other issues. So, um, is there any question about that? Uh, Councilman Bellinger? Thank you, Chair. When will we be getting, since, I don't think that all of us were invited to the meeting, when will we be kinda getting a draft, or minutes, or what transpired from that? Or- I don't know that, that, it's the mayor's meeting. Okay. So, I don't know that there were minutes taken. Um, Councilmember Feigl was there, and I was there, and Councilmember Hinson was there. And, um, I would say that's a question for the mayor. Okay. Thank you. Did you... Councilmember Feigl? I thought I heard him say that he was going to put together something. Maybe a summary? Summary. Yeah. Mm-hmm. And there are four items which the group, in general, has decided need further discussion. And, um- Let's see. You'll help me. Final boxes, uh, grandfathering, definition of family, and ... Licensing, licensing. Oh, yes, licensing. So, those are issues that are going to be discussed further in the meetings. So, um, we'll, we'll look for some kind of summary from the mayor. Yes, Council Member Lawless? Um, just for those out there watching, et cetera, uh, do you know if this is a public meeting he's having? Um. I would look to our Law Commissioner. And other people come? The people who attended, it's my understanding they were by invitation from the mayor. If you mean a public meeting that, where the Open Meetings Law would apply, the answer is no. And, uh, council members, if you'll get your monitor up and running if it's not already. Um, and we will ... We have here folks from Planning, folks from Law, and so, and folks from Code Enforcement. And, um, Officer Gaines is here, so if there are questions as we move through these, I think we have the expertise here to give some staff support. So, on page four of the packet is the beginning of the possible amendments to the ordinance. And the first is, uh, combine and modify the definition of boarding or lodging house. And I understand at the last planning committee meeting, um, which Council Member Blues chaired, thank you so much for doing that, um, there was a brief presentation on each of these and what they meant and how they came to evolve. So, I think it might be appropriate just to work through them and have any motions that council members want to make. So, um, the first is boarding or lodging house, and, um, would, uh, Rochelle, would you mind to be at the podium for not ... I know you've been there on many previous occasions, but since you've crafted these and, and, um, studied them, it might be appropriate for you to just say one sentence about this and then we'll have some council discussion, and ... Is there a specific aspect? I'm sorry, I was- Boarding or lodging house. Okay. We're gonna start at the top. Um, I think in essence in looking at combining these, it seemed that whatever motivated previously having two separate definitions for these, um, may have been something archaic in terms of how these, uh, uses were being, um, pursued in the past, and that for practical purposes and the impact of this use, that they could be combined to avoid that kind of confusion. Um, another thing we looked at is that the way the current definition of lodging house was worded, it made it sound as if, um, if any one of these factors was present, boom, that made it a lodging house. I don't think that was ever the intention, because obviously one of these factors could be present, even if it is a traditional family living situation, so we also changed our wording to say, "In identifying this use, the following factors shall be considered." Um, so that it would take away that, that illusion that in fact we were saying any one of these factors would make it this use. So, those were the thoughts, I think, that were in our minds when we developed this. And also, um, by combining both of them with this, um, factor A, being five persons or more, that kind of made them more consistent and intermeshed better with the proposed definition of family. And of course, that number would alter if the recommendation were to change the number for the family definition. So, you know, that's kinda flexible. Thank you. Council members, if you have motions or discussions, will you log in please? Council Member Blues? Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, since these issues have been discussed for quite some time, not only in the student, uh, Student Housing Task Force, but also in the, uh, moratorium work group, I, uh, I think that for purposes of trying to get some direction and to move us forward, that it's appropriate to start, uh, uh, considering each of these items for moving toward council and resolution. So, uh, I, I w- uh, I would, I would move to, uh, to accept definition number, number one of boarding or lodging house and move that to full council for its consideration. Do I hear a second? Second. So, Council Member Blues moved and council, and Vice Mayor Gray seconded to... ... move, uh, boarding or lodging house definition forward now. Is there any discussion? Council Member Feigl. Um, thank you, Chair. I was actually just going to ask some, some very general questions about boarding and lodging. Okay. Um, so, uh, this is not necessarily toward that motion. Well, if it's on... I think if it's on boarding or lodging house, it would be appropriate. Well, um, what, what zones are boarding and lodging houses permitted uses? I'm not sure I can answer as to all zones, but the least intensive zone where they are permitted is an R3, which allows, um, apartments, um, and lodging and boarding houses. Because those are more intensive uses. There's more comings and goings of multiple residents. And so R3 is the least intense. They are not allowed in an R1 or an R2. The other thing is that even in an R3, if it is more than eight residents, it becomes a conditional use, which would go before the Board of Adjustment to determine whether that intense of a use is appropriate on the property where it is being proposed. If it's less than eight, then it's a principal permitted use. I'm not sure whether eight... you know, maybe more than eight is conditional, but there is a cutoff there. Okay. Well, let, let me just see if I heard you right. So in R3, it's a conditional use? In R3, it is a permitted use up to eight. So it's permitted. And I think that may include eight. I think it may be more than eight kicks it over into conditional. So if you have eight or fewer, it is a principal permitted use. There is no other process, other than go to building inspection, apply for your occupancy permit, and of course that triggers all necessary safety inspections in order to authorize the issuance of that permit. But that's it. There's no review board, or, you know- Or, or- ... anything like that. ... nothing to do with it. All right. J. Thank you. Council Member Stemmett. Thank you, Chair. Rochelle, do you have the current ordinance available so people here in attendance and the public watching can see what we're changing exactly? If they can put on the overhead? And if you'll just walk us through the exact changes so everyone understands where we're coming from today. I'm not sure in what conjunction this was prepared, but it is showing that, um, the, uh, intended sections to be looked at as far as definitions, this will show when she gets it up, lodging and boarding houses and the family definition, um, as they currently appear. I think the primary difference is that lodging house previously had no number, boarding house did. I don't know why that was the case. I mean, historically, I have, I have no idea why they did that, but the thought was that this is something based on our proposed definition of family. Especially, we would not consider boarding or lodging house as the applicable use unless there were more unrelated adults living there than what is permitted under our family definition. So we felt that five should apply to both of them. And the other primary difference is, again, that when it said, "Characterized by one or more of the following under lodging house," it made it sound as if if one of those conditions was present, that automatically made it a lodging house. I don't think that was the intent, so we changed that wording to be, "These are factors to be considered in determining whether, in fact, it is this more intensive use taking place on the property." Okay, so they don't have to meet every single one. They can meet one or- That's correct. I mean, you know, it came up that you could have a family and you have teenage children, and they say, "I want a lock on my door. I don't want you in my room." That doesn't make it a lodging house, and that was never the intent. So the thought was in analyzing the use, these are relevant factors to look at. And w- was it explored a- exactly how many of these we have in our community? Have we looked at any of those numbers currently? And, um, how many other properties is w- we've identified through our enforcement efforts that this would affect? I don't think there are statistics on that. Dewey would have... Dewey Crow would be the only one that might be able to answer to that. There may be records on how many actual occupancy permits for boarding and lodging houses have been issued. I don't know that we're gonna have any figures, obviously, on those that we have not discovered. I guess my concern was y- you're- we're currently undergoing an enforcement effort an- and headed by the law department. We send out letters. Any of those properties could fall under this and be able to remain where they're at? You mean if we adopt these text amendments- Yes, yes. ... would they remain where they're at? Right. Um, not if they qualify as a boarding or lodging house. Now, under our proposed definitions kind of flowing over into our proposed changes for family, if you have five or more people living there and they come in and say, "But we are a stable and functional family unit," they do have an opportunity to go before the Board of Adjustments and get that recognition. But if under this definition there are, um, more than... five or more people living there, and they, uh, show some of these characteristics, um, privacy with respect to no one else is allowed in my sleeping area, um, it's a situation where each person is responsible for their percentage of the rent so that in essence it's not a family kinda situation, um, then our position would be they were not legal before and they're not legal now. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Is there any other comment from council members? Council Member Feigl. Thank you, chair. Just to clarify then, basically I think you were talking about, Council Member Stinnet, I think you were talking about -- Yeah. ... grandfathering? So, just for clarity then, this will not include grandfathering? As it is currently written, our position would be no because they never were a family. The intent of these definitions is to clarify what a family is, to clarify what a boarding and lodging house is. The intent is not to change what should have been there before and how it should have been enforced. The intent is to clarify to make it enforceable. Thank you. Is there other comment from council members? Uh, if not, we have a motion on the floor to, uh, approve... Council Member Blues, I'm, your motion is to approve this first section and send it forward to council? The full council? Th- that's correct. Um, so we'll go ahead and vote, and, um, all those in favor, please say aye. - Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, thank you very much. Um, number two is to add a definition of congregate living facility. And Rochelle, did you have any comment on this at all? Well, the primary reason we were putting this in , uh, well, I'd say maybe there were two primary reasons. Um, one, I think we discussed at our last meeting in, in response to a question from, um, Council Member Feigl is that there may be, um, a group, adult group living facility that is not in itself specifically covered by one of our other definitions. And this was intended to kind of capture that kind of a living facility where it did not meet our definition of family and it was a group of adults living together. Um, and therefore, this is kind of all-encompassing. It says it includes, but is not limited to, boarding or lodging houses and fraternity and sorority houses. And of course, one of the other proposed additional definitions on this document is for a fraternity or sorority house. The other purpose is that there are specific code regulations and safety requirements that are applicable on, uh, to congregate living facilities. And that is a term of art that appears in the building code. And the thought was that by including this as a definition in our zoning ordinance, we would, in essence, be trying to put people on notice that if they look at the building code requirements, that's what is going to be applicable to their facility. Are there any questions or comments or motions? Council Member Blues? Well, again, um, and, and because this is in a sense a kind of corollary to, to, to number one, I, uh, I would move that we, uh, we, we, we approve this definition of congregate living facility and forward it to full council for consideration. So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Um, Council Member Blues has moved and Council Member Gray has seconded to move congregate living facility d- definition to the full council. Discussion? Uh, Council Member Stinnet. So would this be in every residential or, uh, every zone ordinance, this definition will apply? Our definitions to that should apply uniformly to all the zones within the zoning ordinance. Okay, so regardless. Okay, thank you. Is there any other comment? Wait just one second. I was looking at the, the ones at the top and not down at congregate living. Did you have a comment on the motion? Just a second. Uh, and while you're thinking, Council Member Feigl, I did want to say that I had a phone call from, um, Robin Peace at the University of Kentucky wanting to be sure that this did not negatively affect, um, group homes. And I believe the answer is that it does not. Group homes that are, um, for specific types of groups of people. No, I, I don't think this intention is to change anything that currently regulates either where such facilities can be located or how they are regulated under the building code. There's no intent to change that. Yep, thank you. Is there any comment or question or... Council Member Stinnet, um, if you'll please log in. So, so, following up on what Council Member Gordon just said, so we have a couple of nonprofit group homes in this area. What, what, what are we gonna classify those as if they have more than five people? Are they gonna be a boarding or lodging house if the new definition passes? Well, under the- How are we gonna classify them? ... under the proposed, um, new definition of family, it provides specific exceptions that are required under state statutes and under federal statutes, the Fair Housing Act. Um, there are specific exceptions to, um, facilities of that sort. They are intended to offer a home-like, stable and permanent environment. Um, because those exceptions have been recognized by the courts and by law as being permissible in family residential zones. So that will not change. That, that is, is still the case. I'm not saying that all nonprofit situations fall under these statutory or federal exceptions. We would have to look at the nature. But we currently have those in our zone ordinances, so there's no need to add those. I- in these- No, I think there are, there are currently regulation, we do not intend to change anything about the way those were being, um, addressed. Well, we'll talk about it when we get to the next issue then. Thank you. Council Member Feigel. Thank you, Chair. Uh, another question there on the zoning. You said that it's currently in our zoning ordinances? The term congregate living facility is not, but the, the things that are included in it, um, the boarding or lodging houses was ob- were obviously there. Fraternity and sorority houses is a definition that's being proposed to be added, which was one of the recommendations of the student task force. And so, it's not intended to create a new category. It is intended to just kind of be a, an umbrella kind of thing, that these types of facilities are considered as congregate living facilities and therefore are subject to the appropriate safety building code regulations. Okay. And, and, are there area, are there zoning, um, areas where this is a permitted use? I don't think that term is in the listed permitted uses because it is a new term. But the terms that fall under it, such as the lodging, the boarding, the fraternity and sorority houses, um, those are addressed as uses in the zoning ordinance. Okay. I- if the need comes along that a different type of congregate living facility, um, comes to our attention, then we can make a, a text amendment if it's needed at that time. At this point, we're not really aware of what may in- be encompassed by this. Okay, thank you. Other questions? Comments? All right, the motion on the floor is to approve the definition of congregate living facility and move it forward to the f- full council. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that is approved. And, um, with the committee's blessing, because congregate living includes fraternity and sorority house, I'd like to, for you to turn to the next page and for us to discuss number six. Um, and as I recall, Rochelle, in the student housing, number six is fr- definition of fraternity or sorority house. In the student housing task force, this was something specifically requested by the University of Kentucky because our zoning ordinance doesn't have any definition. It uses the terms fraternity and sorority house, but doesn't define them. Is that... I think that's correct. I wasn't specifically involved in creating this definition. I think Chris King drafted this for us. But, and I wasn't specifically involved in the student housing task force either, but it's my understanding this was responsive to their concern. Yes, Chris, would you like to comment on this? It seems like a logical thing to deal with right now. Welcome. Thank you. Yes, the reason that we suggested this needed to be done, as you've already heard, is it was a recommendation of the student housing task force as being a gap in our ordinance that needed some definition. And there were two issues that we were trying to address in this definition, one of those being the actual living quarters and then, uh, the other issue that we had been facing, which was when a fraternity or sorority was purchasing a separate structure for which to have gatherings and parties. So, when, in writing this definition, we consulted, um, uh, model ordinances and definitions from other communities, did some research and kind of, um, developed this particular definition to try to address that situation, or both of those situations, actually. Very good. Thank you. Um, are there any questions for Mr. King on- I have one. ... what he had said? Council Member Feigel? Um, as, as I'm reading this, it says, um, any group that has been officially recognized by the college, university or seminary. And if, if a group who is together as a fraternity or sorority, uh, chooses to continue to, to stay together and are willing to un-affiliate with the university, does that allow them to stay in that location? I- I'm just trying to, to- Sure. ... kind of think ahead to what the reactions might be. My sense would be that, and, and I will stand corrected if Rochelle runs up here to correct me, but my, my sense would be that then that congregate living facility, if they were no longer affiliated, would fall out of the definition of fraternity or sorority and then would have to stand on its own under one of the other definitions, either a boarding or lodging house or as a family, if it was a very small group. So, um, that is how I would see that working in reality, if that situation occurred. Okay, and again, I would ask, are there zones where this is a permitted use? Fraternity and sorority houses, if I'm not mistaken, are conditional uses, uh, wherever they do appear in the zoning ordinance, which I believe is R3 and R4. I'm looking back to Mr. Sally. He has the book and is, uh, checking our recollections. But, uh, uh, my recollection, there is no zone where a fraternity or sorority house is a by-right principle permitted use. You have to go to the Board of Adjustment. And they're a conditional use? As a conditional use. And are there some criteria that they must meet in order to qualify before the Board of Adjustments? None specifically. They would meet any of the other kind of criteria established in the ordinance or by case law. ... that governs the Board of Adjustments review of the situation. Uh, as you know, uh, notice is sent out, so neighbors are permitted to weigh in on their feelings. The board can put special conditions, uh, added to that, but the general, um, philosophy, I might say, about conditional uses is that there are locations within that zone which are appropriate for that use, but there are other locations that may not be appropriate for various reasons. And the board then is given a lot of latitude to hear testimony on both sides of that and make a decision. So in reality, the Board of Adjustments could actually deny the conditional use permit for any fraternity or sorority- For a fraternity or sorority, yes, and I believe they have in the past on some occasions. ... that came forward. Probably in a minority of cases. But, but they have the right- Absolutely. ... whether they have historically- When it's a conditional use, yes. ... or not. I'm just saying that if nothing is grandfathered here, and every fraternity or sorority that is off campus comes in to ask for a conditional use permit, I'm assuming that would have to happen, correct? Absolu- Well, I might defer to law. Yeah, oh, right. When you change a definition, or add a definition in this case, um, to add some clarity, any use that is out there that was legally permitted under previous ordinances- Grandfathering. ... is automatically grandfathered in as a, um, um, n- it's called a non-conforming use. Uh, in Kentucky, our state laws and local laws generally favor those things, but again, they would have had to go in as a legal use. So if someone had just set up a fraternity house in a house, and just didn't get caught, that would not be legal and they would not have any, um, protection. However, if a fraternity or sorority, legally approved, has the necessary occupancy permits and done that, even if we change the zoning ordinance as to where they're permitted or what defines them, they would be automatically grandfathered. So we are talking about grandfathering in this case. Well, in any case, and, and perhaps Rochelle- Where it's permitted. ... needs to explain a little bit more about- There has been an approved and permitted use. ... the whole realm of law relative to non-conforming uses. I see. And I think she was alluding to that earlier when we were talking of boarding and lodging houses. If, in fact, they were permitted and legal as a boarding and lodging house where they are, they would be automatically grandfathered. However, if it was they were not legal and just had been occupying a premises illegally and hadn't been caught, then they don't, uh, have that kind of protection from non-conforming ... under a non-conforming use law. But could then come forward- But then could come forward- ... to the Board of Adjustments? Yes. Important. Thank you. I appreciate your highlighting that. That's a really important point. And it would apply to all the changes and definitions, correct? That's correct. That's a universal- Yes. ... fact of law when you're dealing with zoning ordinances- Okay. ... in Kentucky. Council member Lawless. So what you're saying is if someone had a conditional use for a lodging house or whatever, um, currently, then they would be grandfathered in. But if they were operating a lodging house in R1 or R2, and didn't have that conditional use, they would not be. Is that what you're saying? I think that's correct, except that I'm not sure a lodging house is permitted in any case in a single family residential zone. So if they were deemed to be a boarding or lodging house, um, they would not be, they would not have that non-conforming use protection. In an R1? In an R1. Did you have anything else, Council member Lawless? No. Does anyone else have a comment or question about the motion? Thanks, Chris. The motion on the floor is to add the new term and definition of fraternity or sorority house. Uh, if there's no other- Motion to approve the motion. Oh, w- do we have a motion? No. We don't have a motion. There's not a motion. I'm sorry. We started our questions first. Thank you. This is why committees are good. Mm-hmm. Is there a motion? I mean- ... there isn't one on the floor. I move that we accept... I move that we accept the, number six, the definition of fraternity or sorority house. Do I hear a second? Second. Okay. Council member Lawless has moved and council member Blues has seconded, um, the motion to approve the definition of fraternity or sorority house and move it to the full council. I see no more speakers, so all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Thank you very much. Um, now let's turn back to the previous page, and I wonder, um, if we could put up the current definition of family on the overhead. And we'll look at number three, which is to revise the definition of family, and Rochelle, um, do you wanna give us a quick- ... summary of this. Um, basically, th- the current definition of family, it's my understanding, has been unchanged in our zoning ordinance, um, since, I think, the late 60s, possibly earlier. There have been a lot of developments nationally in case law, um, in, in both, uh, federal courts and, uh, state courts on exactly what is permitted under this kind of a, uh, broad general definition that was our original. This is the revised. Do we have the original? That was on the other page . Uh, in fact, there was one case in Kentucky, um, specifically, where there was a, um, what the local zoning, um, people felt was a group home for nursing students. And under this kind of a definition, the Kentucky court held that it was sufficient to meet the definition of family, because they shared a kitchen and, uh, um, you know, shared most of the, uh, the house amongst them, which, in essence, is, um, it allows pretty much any kind of a group situation, um, as long as they allege that they share meal costs and share use of a kitchen and things of that sort. And this is why it's been so difficult for building inspection to try to go in and allege that a facility is actually operating as a boarding or lodging house and not a family. So looking at case law throughout the country and, uh, several articles, uh, written by experts, it was determined that what would work from a zoning standpoint and be reasonable in terms of controlling the density and trying to, to protect the stability of our single and two-family areas would be to look at the number of people living in a home if they are, um, adult individuals, unrelated, and setting a number that would be reasonable as not having an adverse impact on the neighborhood and, of course, recognizing, um, our traditional and/or nontraditional family units also. So the proposal in the, um, in the text amendment would be, um, there's a set of, um, five different groups that would qualify as a family. Michelle, excuse me for interrupting. Mm-hmm. I think it might be helpful, especially if anyone's watching or has bad eyes- ... to read this short paragraph family that's the current, in the current ordinance. Do you mind to do that? No, I don't mind. Currently, family under our, uh, zoning ordinance is defined as a person living alone or two or more persons customarily living together as a single housekeeping unit and using common kitchen facilities, but not including a group occupying a hotel; club; boarding, lodging, fraternity, or sorority house; nursing home; rest home; orphanage; community residence; rehabilitation home; or other similar building. Thank you. And part of the problem with this is, in essence, you know, you're talking about if it's unrelated people and you have just two individuals living in a home, but they're unrelated and maybe they don't share their housekeeping costs, their food costs, that would be prohibited. And under case law throughout the country, it's been found that that kind of a situation is not going to have any more adverse impact on a neighborhood than a family. So for land use purposes, that has been held, that kind of a situation has been held to be unenforceable and unconstitutional. So we're, we're trying to address something that will, as, like I said, protect the neighborhoods. So, um, the models that have been supported by the court and that have been created in response to case law throughout the country have set various criteria for what is acceptable as a family unit in a, in a single-family or two-family residential zone. And our proposal would be, um, initially what is, in essence, traditional, any number of people related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship, or other duly authorized custodial relationship. So that's going to protect any kind of a, um, typical, traditional kind of family, um, regardless of the number of people that are living there. Um, B is four or fewer unrelated persons. Now that number, um, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions will have it as, as low as three. I'm not sure I saw anything that was lower than three. Some will have it as high as five, six. That's something that, that can be discussed. But four has been held to be a reasonable number, um, and we're not going to look at whether these people are related or not. It's, you know, we can't look at each relationship situation. This is a reasonable use of a single-family residential property. Um, C is two unrelated persons and any children related to either of them or under their care through a duly authorized custodial relationship. And I think this kinda thing came about to allow, for instance, single parents to, to maintain a family-type situation by sharing costs with another person and having the children live there, that that is a reasonable, again, use of a, of, a family residential situation. Um, D- ... was -- we discussed this earlier, um, in connection to Council Member Stinnet's question. It's not more than eight persons who are, and it talks about residents of a home-like residence as defined under Kentucky statutes, or handicapped persons as defined under the Fair Housing Act. These are exceptions that courts throughout the country have recognized that, that these persons are entitled to live in this kind of a situation in a residential area. And where, where it's eight or fewer people, it's a reasonable use, um, of family residential property. So these are legal exceptions that the courts, uh, and the laws have created. Uh, and then E is a functional family as defined and regulated herein. Um, the courts have struck down definitions of family that just set a number, and do not allow people who may exceed that number, but are in fact in a permanent, stable relationship that's not going to have any more impact than a family that's, say, a couple and five children, to have an opportunity to apply for recognition as a functional family, and have, um, have that recognized so that they can also live in a typical single-family or two-family neighborhood situation. Um, if you look at the top of the next page, uh, the definition headed four, in essence, defines a functional family as a number that exceeds what is the f- um, unrelated persons that fall under family, and it provides some factors. They would go before the Board of Adjustment to apply for a conditional use permit to be recognized as a functional family, and there are some factors there that, um, that th- that would not fall under a functional family, things that we would exclude, such as, obviously, residents of a boarding or lodging house, a fraternity, sorority, or dormitory, a lodge, combine, federation, coterie, or like organization. Any organizational units, that's not a typical family. Um, a group of individuals whose association is temporary or seasonal, this doesn't have the kind of stability and permanence, um, that will support the character and stability of a single-family or two-family residential neighborhood. Um, or any group of individuals who are in a group living arrangement as a result of criminal offenses. This prohibits, um, residents of, of, uh, hou- halfway houses, um, from residing in a, a stable single-family or two-family residential zone. Um, and then number five lists characteristics that, that basically are indicators that these people are indeed, um, a stable, functional family unit that should appropriately be living in a single or two-family residential zone. Um, these factors can certainly be enlarged upon, they can be decreased, but these are factors for the Board of Adjustment to use as guidance to determine the impact that this group of people would have on the neighborhood in which they're residing to determine whether it's appropriate that they be a functional family. Thank you very much, Rochelle. Um, so you've just covered three, four, and five for us, and I- They, they really are meshed together. ... well, they're interlocked. Yes. Yes. And I think what I would like to do is to entertain, um, if there's any motions, but I'd like to, um, ask the committee to hear the public before we vote on anything on this, if it suits you. And there are, um, there are nine people signed up now. This would be only if you chose if you wanna speak to this issue. If you were wanting to speak to boarding or lodging house or, uh, fraternity or sorority or congregate living, we could hear that at the end, because remember, this is just the beginning. Whatever is moved forward to council would be voted on by council, and if it's approved by council, it's only approving the initiation of a text amendment. So then it goes to the planning commission. So, um, just to be sure everybody understands that, that this is not... What goes to the council and the council votes is not a final vote on anything. Um, so does that process suit- I- ... everybody to hear from public? Did you have a question about the process? Um, I would like to do that. I would like for the limit to be three minutes and that people cannot yield their time, because we have a lot to get through, if that would be suitable to folks. That's my motion. And would you like to hear the public right now? I'd like to hear the public right now- Okay. ... before we move forward on this. And, m- I make a motion we, um, have three-minute comments and people not yield their time so that we can move through. Do I hear a second? Second. Okay. The motion on the floor, yes, is to allow public comment and, um, three-minute limit and no yielding of time. Yes, discussion on this. I know some people are on the electronic to speak about other things, but- Is, wh- And let me say, the reason I'm saying that is, we did two hours of public comment, um, at the last meeting, and this is a special meeting, and also, there were, there will be many, many opportunities for public comment at public meetings, at the council meetings, at the planning commission, and then back to council in the council meetings. So, I'm not trying to ... I'm, I'm, I wanna hear from people before we hear this, but also don't want- That's fine. ... you know... Council members, are you on the electronic sign-up to discuss the motion? The procedure to discuss the motion? Okay. Um, Council Member Blues. Actually, um, Madam Chair, I- I- You're to just- ... signed up to make- Okay. ... another motion. Okay. So you're the next step? I guess I'm the next step. Is that right? Council Member Ellinger. About the process. Thank you, Jerry. No. I want to talk about the three minutes and yielding your time, I- I- I don't... That is something, if somebody is here to represent a group, I don't see a... the reason why, if there... if- if we have nine people want to speak, that's 27 minutes, or if one person wants to speak, that's still the same amount of time allotted if they're speaking on their behalf. I don't see a- a problem with that if they're the one that's representing that group. So I don't see why we have to limit somebody yielding a time. I don't understand that part of it. So- so, well, so Council Member Feigl, did you want to speak to the process? Same thing. Um, same thing. Council Member Stennet? The process. I just want to remind my colleagues that council rules say you can have up to a maximum of 15 minutes where five people yield your time, so you couldn't have 27, but you also could have up to 15 minutes, and I- I would- I would hope we'd stay by those rules. So we might... Okay. So Council Member Blues, are you on for the next go-round? All right. Um, so the motion on the floor is to allow public comment now for people who want to speak specifically to definition of family, uh, definition of functional family, or the Board of Adjustment portion, uh, limiting to three minutes and no, um, assigning of minutes. So all those in favor say, "Aye." Anyone opposed? Let's do a hand count. Would you repeat the motion? This is with... The motion is to allow public comment right now for these three sections only, and to allow three minutes per person with no, um, assignment of your minutes to another person. I'll withdraw that motion and- Okay. ... allow that... make a new motion, if you want. Oh, does the seconder withdraw? Yes? Okay. What's your new motion? My new- my new motion is that we go on and hear, uh, public comment now and that they be allowed three minutes, and they can yield their time. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second. Okay. Is there any discussion of this motion? All those in favor, say, "Aye." Anyone opposed? All right. Now, if you do not intend to speak on the definition of family or the definition of functional family or the Board of Adjustment process, please wait then until the end of the meeting. And so first is Kate Savage. And will you set the timer please, Vicki? And each person will need to say their name and address for the record. Sorry. My name is Kate Savage, and I live at 619 Columbia Avenue. And is there any way that can be shown in its entirety? Thank you. I want to give you a snapshot of my neighborhood. This is the street that I live on, Columbia Avenue. There's 15 houses presently- Now, Kate, uh, you are speaking to the definitions that we have? I am. Yes, I am. Okay. Thank you. I am, because in this stretch of homes, there are seven houses that are for rent, and there are six that are lived in. The numbers 1, 2 are where those houses are occupied by that number of people, and then where there's 4 is those houses are rental. Unfortunately, I did this in color, but it's not showing up. Um, the ones with the dots are duplexes. So can you put the next one in for me? Um, if, with the current ordinance that you're examining, or the zone text amendment, you allow four people in the rental houses that are in this stretch, where there is now four is four for the rental houses. Those are all rental houses, and I've put four people in them. The ones that have one and two are the current people living who own those homes. So this 15-house stretch of Columbia Avenue would wind up with nine legitimate residents and 36 people renting on this stretch. What happens with duplexes, um, one is owned, the 1, 1, and then the 4, 4 is a rental piece. If the 1, 1 here were to sell, there's enough backyard to do this, and then please put the other one in. What happens is people buy a small house, and then they stick a big box on the back. And so they would be allowed to put four in the front and four in the back. So now, I would be living next to somebody who could have converted that original duplex, R1, which is legal, into a house that has an adjoinment so it's still considered part of that original home, and there would be eight people living next to me. I ask you to consider seriously that number four. I think it's very generous. I think the residents are still exposed to waking up one day and finding this kind of atrocity next to them. I personally would prefer to see three. Thank you. Thank you very much. And, uh, just so that, uh, folks can queue up, uh, we have Dick Murphy, and then I'm going to apologize ahead of time, I believe this might be Kevin Martin. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. If you'll queue up to be ready next, and then, uh, Daryl Ratliff. Followed by Kelsey Hayes. Thank you. Ma'am, Chairman, uh, Kevin Martin has agreed to yield his time to me, as has Kelsey Hayes. Okay. Kelsey Hayes is the Vice President of the UK Student Government Association. She, uh, five minutes ago, came up to me, said she had to go to class and would like to yield her time to me. Okay. Now, you have to be present to yield your time. Is she still here? She had to leave. Uh, Darrell, will you yield your time to me? Excuse me. Sure. I'll yield. Okay. So Dick Murphy and Darrel Ratliff and Kevin Martin, you have all those, so you have nine minutes. I'm here on behalf of the Greater Lexington Apartment Association and the University Area Housing Association, which are, have very grave concerns about the definition of family, which we'd like to relate to you. As I've told you before, the Greater Lexington Apartment Association rates, represents over 18,000 housing units here in Fayette County. And we have major, major issues with the definition of family as it is right now. The, uh, we have proposed an alternative to you, which you may have seen parts of this before. I'm not gonna go over this, because... in great detail, because I wanna discuss your definition of family and how it differs. Um, but we have an alternative which states that you count not by bedroom, but by people living in a house. That's a change from what we originally wanted. Not counting bedrooms, but counting people, because people are easier to count, and because we were told that if you have five bedrooms, you can have 10 people, and that's not desired. So we wanted to count by people, which states that after January 1st, 2010 housekeeping unit would be limited to five or fewer unrelated individuals. But for people who had a unit which was used for a greater number before, they could go on, grandfathered if you will, as six or fewer unrelated individuals. Same for two family dwelling. We talk about parking requirements, which this is our proposal instead of the proposal that has been put in front of you. Problems we have with the proposal that's put in front of you. Number one is that it limits the people in a family to four or fewer unrelated persons. The problem we have is that you saw from the slide before, on the current definition of a family, there is no limit on the number of persons who are considered a family as long as they are customarily living together, sharing common cooking facilities. Problem we have as organizations that many of our members have complied with that and have five or six people living in a single family home, which was perfectly legal and is perfectly legal today. We are concerned that from the d- from the discussion that has been made is that now, changing the definition to four or fewer will lead people to say, "Well, you are now illegal, even though you were legal last year. If you have five or six people living in a house, you are now illegal." And that is because, and a remark made by the law department considering grandfathering in on boarding house, this is an indication the limit on people means they were never a family in the past, which means they will not be grandfathered in. So we are very concerned about the numbers you have in here, and the use of those numbers. Grandfathering is extremely important to us because we, people have had spent a great deal sums of money to purchase properties, to improve properties, to mortgage properties, and who have legally been using these for five or six people. And they are at danger now of losing that investment, losing the millions of investments they have. And ta- money is important. We can't provide student housing without having the funding for it and making it, and that this will be used to, to, uh, bolster an opinion that in the past, people who have had five or six unrelated individuals can no longer be considered a family. And that when the current five or six students move out, that they will now be limited in the future to four or fewer people. We have major problems with that. Um, we have major problems with the fact that if you want more than four people, if four... And typically it's a group of people who come to a property owner and want to live together in, in, in, in the same house, that they have to go to the Board of Adjustment. It's, this has got, this is... will be only students who will be required to go to the Board of Adjustment, or perhaps a group of nuns, which will be going to the Board of Adjustment. Perhaps those are the only two groups that would go to the Board of Adjustment under this case. And the Board of Adjustment's now gonna have to have televised public hearings on what your relationship is to all the people living in that house together, when all they want to do is have five people living together, uh, and sharing common cooking facilities. We are concerned that one of these factors of the boarding house, or w- if you don't meet one of the factors which, uh, d- defines congregate living facilities, for instance, if you don't share meal expenses, you will be told, "No, you're not a family anymore. You cannot live together. Sorry." Uh, uh, again, and we have problems with the legality of it. This, the Oneonta case coming out of the City of Oneonta, New York, which was just six months ago, struck down a very similar ordinance. The only difference was that there were three or fewer persons, was the definition on that. O- other than that, it was the same. If you went above that, you had to go to the Board of Adjustment. The New York Supreme Court Trial Division struck that down as being unconstitutional. We do not want to be forced in a position where this organization, which has tried to cooperate with you, is forced in a position of having to challenge this in court and going through all those delays. We have proposed a number, six, which would be a, the upper limit. W- we have not proposed to, uh, approve eight-bedroom, ni- these nine-bedroom, uh, houses that have been discussed, having 18 students in those. We are not here to defend those. We are det- try, here to defend the vast majority of property owners, which the Greater Lexington Apartment Association and the University Areas Housing Association represent, who have done this in a legal manner, in good faith, and now find themself with a threat that houses which are accommodating five or six young people who are attending the university, who we want to have here, are now gonna be told, "Sorry, you cannot do this in the future." And it's one thing to say, "Well, if you're grandfathered now, you're okay. You know, what's legal now is n-" It's unclear what's legal now. This is a- all coming through because of the uncertainty and unclearness in the ordinance. We want certainty. My- my clients ha- came to me and said, "Let's cut to the chase. Let's get a number. Let's not fight the city for years. Let's come up with a reasonable number that everybody can live with." And that's why we have in our proposal, not defi- not changing the definition of family and who's related to who, just relating to the housekeeping unit definition and saying that from now on, five or fewer is the number. But in the past, if you had six, you're allowed to have six if you had six in the past. Now, this lets the, the city crack d- If you wanna go after people who have nine or 10, this gives full freedom to do that. We're not here to support those or advocate those. But it does deg- give a degree of certainty to the people in our organizations. As I said, I can't, in the time we have, I can't discuss all the issues we have with you. We thank you for the opportunity to speak, and we hope you know the great level of concern we have over these definitions as they are proposed to you today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Uh, next was Adam Jones, but I think I saw him leave. So then we have Anthony Humphris? I just go at the end, please. Uh, you'd like to go at the end? Uh, Cindy Allen, Craig Harden. Pardon me? So, uh, Cindy Allen? Give mine to Craig Harden. Okay. Uh, Mr. Harden, uh, you have s- uh, six minutes. Cindy Harden has given you her time. Name and address, please. Welcome. Craig Harden, 228 Lexington Avenue. I'm the Legislative Chair of the Greater Lexington Apartment Association, and also represent of the University Area Housing Association. Um, I'm not even sure where to start with this this morn- Um, did you, you're here to speak on definition of family. Yes, I am. Thank you. That's a good place to start. Right. I guess my comment is, uh, are you kidding me? You know, I, I can't even believe this stuff is being proposed. I, I, I'm, I'm really there. I just can't even believe you're proposing this. I can't believe any of you in election year would wanna get even close to, to touching the definition of family. It just doesn't make sense to me. Uh, but, uh, you know, here we are with the definition of family out there, so, uh, you know, from my perspective, um, this is j- We went through this at council about, um, I forget how many years ago where, where it was that the students marched down here, and it was no more than three unrelated people were allowed in. That was the proposal by, uh, Councilman DeCamp. And this is just exactly the same thing. It's just no more than four unrelated. That's exactly what this is. So you're, what you're saying is any more than four people, you gotta go before this, um... Excuse me, but I mean, it's gonna be a monkey court at the Board of Adjustment, to, to send people down there and decide whether they can live together as a functional family. That's not an elected body. That body will just be appointed and determined, so that will flow politically year to year, or, uh, uh, administration to administration, as to who can live in properties or not. Th- I just, I don't, am, I don't know if I'm missing something here or not, but this just doesn't make any sense to me. Uh, it's effectively a down-zoning. I mean, what, what will I do with my five and six bedroom houses during the period when suddenly people feel like, "Well, I don't think you're a functional family." Who could apply for those and live in them? What, what do you... It's a, this is a down-zoning, and it just destroys economic value in the, in the area around the university. That's really what this is about. So I don't think it should be masked in any way. Um, we've worked really hard, uh, as a, um, as a group of property owners here to try to find some kind of compromise, and I think by trying to compromise, what we've done is just rolled over. I think that's where we are right now. I think we've just kinda rolled over and said, "Yeah, well, that's fine." And now we're, now this stuff is just coming forward and, uh, you know, it just kep- We w- This council's already spoken to other, some other issues around this and made decisions. Uh, with the, uh, SHIP program that was available and some other things that will help to be the same issue. I know this is about functional fami- family, but it will, it will... Can I have the other three minutes? It goes three minutes at a time, and the- Okay. ... three minutes is a -- is right on the board. Okay, thank you. Um, you know, there are some other issues that will combine to help with behavior and that -- and, uh, which was the SHIP program hasn't had time to work yet. The university hasn't even gotten the office set up yet. Then there -- then, uh, there are other things in play with the -- with the inspection programs. They just haven't had time to work yet. And now, all of a sudden, we're -- we're coming forward and looking at -- at the, you know, what's going forward today with the lodging and boarding, and then this functional family. It's all focused at no more than allowing no more than four people. And what we're saying is we can't stand that, that that won't happen. You'll -- you'll -- uh, we will n- There's no grandfathering in. You're saying suddenly that all of these properties that are there and have been legal and allowed to -- to -- to be built, building inspection has given permits, they've b- passed final inspection, people have been living in them for years, now all of a sudden, you're -- what if -- if it's a six bedroom, you gotta take two bedrooms out of it? W- what do you do with that? I -- I mean I -- I don't ... So I -- I don't know whether we're all not paying attention here or what, but I'm -- I s- I'm sorry I'm -- I'm -- I'm upset today. And, uh, I just -- I can't see where this adds any value to our community whatsoever. Uh, there are other ways to deal with this. I think Mr. Murphy is -- is -- uh, is brilliant, which is why we hired him. He's a former city attorney and he has some really good solutions to offer. Um, and, uh, looking at the -- uh, the -- uh, fr- the -- uh, now I'm upset. What's the name of the -- what's that dwell- Housekeeping unit. Housekeeping unit would keep you away from dealing with the definition of family all together. So I just, I guess, would encourage you to -- to look at some of these other solutions here. There are broader solutions that can be done here and, uh, and be valuable and we can still accomplish the same thing without destroying an enormous amount of economic value around the university. And, again, I know Ms. Hensons' district, there are some -- some things in that area that, you know, your district that need to be dealt with too, but these will deal with them. Look at parking. Add some more parking. That will help too. Okay? I'm -- I'm -- Thank you. I don't need to- Thank you, Mr. Harden. Um, Anthony Humphreys? Hi, I'm Anthony. Anthony Humphreys at 1108 Fontaine Road and I've got a... Mainly just wanted to show an alternative view, I guess if we could dim the lights, of another example of a home. Um, as I think about this issue, and this relates to def- definition of a family, uh, you can't really see the picture real well, but the overall goal is to improve the community and to improve neighborhoods and the fact is, is some neighborhoods are different than other neighborhoods. Um, yes, the neighborhood off of Waller that has cute little bungalow houses that have massive additions on the back of them with eight people to 12 people living in them, that's awful, okay? There are other neighborhoods that literally had houses that were boarded up, the floors falling through, that people like myself have come in and done what I have called for the last several years community development that this exact rule is -- is basically gonna put me under. Um, I think we have to look at our overall vision here of improving neighborhoods and I'm not sure that we have ... that we have the problem exactly nailed. I think we're assuming the entire problem is density and that the solution is, it's the flip side of a coin, the solution is a boarding house that's five or more, which is illegal in R1 and 2, and that a family is four or less, and it's okay in R1 or 2, and you're throwing that out as the solution to the entire thing. And as we've mentioned before, there are other alternatives. Um, a few alternatives. There's two basic problems, design and behavior. On the design, you add some pervious parking, you throw some rules in there about green space, landscaping, and if you add parking, there's no room for people to build those huge additions like Ms. Savage showed because they're out of land. They -- they can't do that. Um, and I think those are illegal anyway, to do a duplex without two doors facing the street now. Um- If you don't mind to keep your comments to the definition of family please, or functional family. Sure. And my -- my point is, is just as Craig was trying to say, rather than messing with the definition of a family and -- and getting into all this other stuff, there are several other solutions to take care of this problem. So I would really urge you to not pass the definition of a family as it's stated today and to look at these other alternatives. Um, and I guess my other alternatives go into things other than a definition of a family. Uh, so, I'm, uh, finished up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Humphreys. Um, okay, we will ... That concludes our speakers and we will turn this back over to council members. So, if you have a comment, a question, a motion, sign in please. Councilman Lawless. Um, I have a couple questions. Uh, one for Rochelle. Rochelle, did you say that, um, in R3, a lodging house was limited to eight people? ... and that there was no... If you give me just one second, let me make sure ... Chris, we would welcome you to come sit up here next to Rochelle in case anything else comes up. Up to and including eight- And if they're- ... is a principle permitted use. So, there is no yes or no process. They have that use by right. Okay. If it's over eight, it is a conditional use. And they go to the Board of Adjustments for a conditional use? That is correct. Thank you. Council member Figel? Did you say you're ready for a motion? I'm ready for council discussion, motion, comment, whatever council wants to do. Okay. Thank you. Um, but first, I would just like to, to preface my remarks. Um, when the moratorium group got together, they were actually following up on the student housing task force, and they were dealing with issues that related to areas around the university. And I think we've all agreed that things really need to change, that we really need to do something to address those problems, and the moratorium, I supported the moratorium work group, I supported the moratorium for six months. But they began to work, they've developed now a, a revised definition for family, which is going to apply citywide. This isn't just related to the area around the university, and that was a very small group that got together. And, um, since that time, I think the mayor has called another group of people together, and they ha- and, and from my estimation, I think he has both parties represented in that group. And there is some pretty significant discussion taking place, and the definition of family is on the agenda for the next meeting. And rather than us to rush through a, a, a definition that is going to actually change the makeup across town, not just related to this one problem area, I really think that we need to slow this thing down and give the mayor's group an opportunity to talk this through, and for us to see how it's going to impact the rest of the community. So, uh, with that, I would like to move to postpone this particular decision until the mayor's taskforce comes back with, um, a, a report from their working group. There's a motion by council member Figel, second by council member Ellinger to postpone, I'm presuming you mean three, four and five? Yes, ma'am. Is that correct? Uh, until the mayor's working group makes a proposal? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Uh, discussion? And are... Those of you on the electronic record, are you wanting to speak about the motion? Okay. Council member Lawless? Um, this is a citywide issue. It is a rental housing issue, it is a density issue, and Tue- last Tuesday night when I got home from the council meeting, raw sewage had backed up into my basement. So, yes, density does matter. I live in an older neighborhood. Um, lived there 16 years and that had never happened. But it is a problem in a lot of these, in a lot of neighborhoods. So, I don't think that there are problems throughout this city, and in retrospect, uh, for me, it's not about students, it never has been about students. It's been about density, infrastructure, and quality of life. Um, a sustainable, green, healthy community for everybody. Um, that being said, um, this is the proposal that was given to us by the mayor's law department, and so that's what we looked at. We didn't change it. This is what they presented to us, and, um, I, I think it's great that the mayor has a work group, but it is, um, you know, by invitation only. It does not represent people from other parts of the city, and, um, it's a, a closed meeting, which is fine for him to have if, you know, it's what... However, this is important for us to move forward, and there's no, I don't agree with everything in here, and it, but I think it needs to go to council, and it can be a parallel process. So, we can move this forward for the full council to debate, because I think this needs to be a full council decision. I, again, I don't agree with everything in here. I do have issues with some of it, but I want us to be able to have a full discussion with the full council on record, in public, and instead of negotiations that, um, you know, are... Don't have any authority really to act, but hopefully, will bring us some alternatives. And I'm open to alternatives. Um, so that being said, I will not be voting for this. ... motion. Dr. Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, uh, I have some problems with, with, uh, with, with, with the move to slow a process down that has never moved forward very rapidly. We've been working on this in, at one level or another for several years. Uh, the student housing task force has wrestled with it for, for a long time. It, those proposals came to council when the planning committee, uh, considered them in some, uh, in some detail and at some length. Uh, the moratorium group has been, uh, been working diligently and has brought forward a set of definitions, which as, , Council Member Lawless says, uh, I think are ready for a full debate. Uh, for a continuation of a process that will take place in the council, and if , a set of definitions move forward in terms of a proposed tax amendment in the, uh, in the planning commission and back to council again. Uh, at no, at, at no stage in this process have be- have we been working on anything other than government time. And this notion that all of a sudden something is coming forward, uh, is, uh, is simply counter to, uh, to the facts. What has been going on for a long time is the systematic destruction of residential neighborhoods and of the property values of people who have been paying mortgages year after year. Uh, and, , we do need to move toward a resolution that will, uh, that will end this sorry practice. So, , for that reason, I, I, I will not support this, this motion. I think that, uh, it is time for the, uh, you know, for the full council to, uh, uh, to debate these issues, to take up these definitions. And I'm hoping that we can, uh, we can move them forward, looking forward at the same time to any contributions that the mayor's group, that the Landlord's Association, that other citizens can continue to, uh, provide for us. Thank you, Madam Chair. You're welcome. Vice Mayor Gray. Um, I agree with, um, Council Member Blues that kicking the can further down the road is, um, is inappropriate. Um, Craig, I couldn't help but hear your admonition about an election year. I think everybody around this table recognizes that engaging conflict is actually engaging work. And sometimes going out on a limb and doing what's right, even in an election year, is essential in what we call democratic processes, even at what some consider to be the flat-footed local level. This issue of economic value is something I'm fairly familiar with, being in business for a long time. We all have opportunities in business to stretch, to go beyond boundaries, to go beyond the limits, and to compromise the social systems within which we work and operate and depend, our entire communities. So where you stand on a particular issue depends on where you're sitting. And where these people in these neighborhoods are sitting is in a continuous state of decay. And that's wrong for the neighborhoods, and it's wrong for the community. It's wrong for the university and its brand going forward and continuing. We talk a lot about sustainability, and we talk about sustainability in the context often of pipes underground and not people above ground. This is about sustainability and livability and quality of life in this place we call Lexington that everybody believes is special. And giving and taking is part of life. It's part of business. Recognizing these economic dilemmas and navigating through them is part of it. But now is not the time to halt this process. Now's the time to continue it. We've been on it a very long time. The wheels of government, we all recognize, grind real slowly, and they allow for lots of constituents' points of view to be brought into the table. And that's what we've had. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You're welcome. Is there any other council member who wishes to speak? Okay, the motion on the floor is to postpone number three, definition of family, number four, functional family, and number five, the board of adjustment process. Uh, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Oh, no. Let's start over. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. I believe the motion fails. Now, are there any other motions? Oh, Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. With reference to, uh, to item number three, revise the definition of family, uh, I move to, uh, to approve that definition and move it forward to the full council for, uh, for debate and, uh, possible approval. So moved. Second. So we have a motion by Council Member Blues, a second by Council Member Lawless, to move forward number three, a definition revis- revised definition of family. Uh, we'll have discussion and debate. Council Member McCord? Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I, I think it's really important that, um, that this move forward to the full council and, and discuss. Uh, I have some real problems with, uh, item number three, um, and to debate it in here, in, in, in committee, uh, doesn't really get us anywhere. And I think it's very important for, uh, for what everybody in this audience has to say to be said to the full council, and this needs to be debated in, in, uh, uh, in full session, so I support this motion of moving it forward, even though I have, um, some real problems with what is in here. Thank you, Madam Chair. You're welcome. Any other council comment or discussion about the motion? And, um, Rochelle, I will look to you on all of these motions that are approved, because they're text amendments, the motion to approve is to ask the council to approve to initiate the text amendment. That's correct. Okay. Um, so if there's no other discussion, all those in favor of moving number three forward... Council Member Feigl? Uh, I would just like to make a comment. Um, I certainly, you know, couldn't agree more with, uh, Council Member McCord that the, the real discussion probably needs to take place at the full council, and I think that ultimately it would go to the full council for that discussion to take place. But I am concerned about what impact this is going to have on the current working group. I know that, you know, the, there were four council members who got together on the moratorium work group, and I know you spent a lot of time and effort on that, um, that initiative, but it was a very small group. At least, uh, in the mayor's group, we do have different, um, parties represented at that table, and I think we have an opportunity to, to gain a lot of insight and possibly some compromises along the way. And I believe that to move forward with this right now will actually, um, mitigate what, what that work group is able to accomplish. Um, I just feel like that it's going to, to cast a, a kind of a shadow over that work group, and they're going to wonder why they're there. So I, I think it's unfortunate that we couldn't postpone this just until the work group was finished, um, and that was certainly, you know, all that I had intended to do. And so I will not support the motion to move it forward. Thank you. Council Member Baird? Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I think I'm at the point where I, I, I agree with, um, Council Member, uh, Feigl. The, um, the mayor's work group, um, th- this situation is putting us in a position of cutting the legs out from under that group, and, um, if, if it gets into council and starts getting legs in council, um, that's what would happen. And, um, as, as was pointed out again by, uh, uh, Council Member Feigl, uh, there may be some very good ideas that come out of this, uh, this work group, and, uh, um, we may not have everything we need at this point to, to make a, a firm decision, and it, it becomes more of an emotional one, so, um, I'm gonna, uh, I think I'm done with, um, uh, my thoughts on this. I, I feel like, uh, we should not bring this forward. Thank you. Council Member Lawless? Um, I'd like to reiterate that the work group worked in good conscience. We met three times in rapid succession, looking at this document that the law department brought to us. The second meeting was attended by other people, and, um, there was a... What I also know is that the mayor's work group, um, which is, has, I mean, I hope they come up with something. I hope any group out there comes up with something. I invite everybody to start meeting, have house parties with four or fewer people attending. And that was just a joke, Craig. Um, and shoot us emails, come testify, talk to us, that I do not, I also have issue with some of the language in here, and I spoke out about that in the work group. Um, however, I think it's time to move forward. The same people that are in the mayor's... ... work group, private closed session are m- many of the same people that were on the, uh, student housing task force. So, I don't see how we are in any way cutting the legs out from under them, because by the time this gets to council for first and second reading, hopefully they will have some great ideas to bring forward. Or they'll have 'em by the time it gets to planning commission. So, for that reason, uh, that is why I'm supporting this, is to move it so it can be heard by the full council and have two readings and lots of input and go to the planning commission where it will have public comment and public meetings and back to the full council. And at any time in that process, any group of people or any individual that has a great idea about how this can be a better document, I'm all for that. So, thank you very much. Council Member Stennet? Thank you, Chair. Council Member Foegelle, who is on the mayor's work group that you're referring to, that we need to heed some, um ... or slow down our process to accommodate? Who- who was on there? Um, actually, council members are not seated around the table, to be real honest with you. So it's made up of a group of, um, homeowners and, um, landlords. Uh, th- the student from the university is, uh, is on that committee. And I'm not real sure who- That's not how it works. ... what the names are, I'm not sure if there was another group represented. Somebody else might know. But at the, at the last meeting, there were actually s- it appeared there were some agreements. And I felt like that, that was a good sign that we may get through this with some compromises rather than just pushing it forward and take whatever happens. So is this a citywide work group that you know of? No. Does anybody know? No. It's ... If I might- Sure, please. If I might say- Mm-hmm. ... since I was invited to sit in on the meeting, the mayor has convened a group of people to talk. Um, as far as I know, it's not an official meeting, official committee. Is that... Is Logan still here? Um, he is, uh, has stated that he would like to have dialogue with landlords and neighborhood people. So it's landlords and neighborhood people. And, um, so there's conversation around the issue. And this is what I was meaning at the beginning of our meeting today. There are four issues they've agreed to discuss: licensing, vinyl boxes, definition of family, and ... What was the fourth one? Dents- No, I don't remember. Christie, you remember what the fourth issue was? So it's a ... I would characterize it as a dialogue group. But the ... Again, is this group represented by the whole city or just the area around UK? Well, the people invited were people around UK, but I believe what they want to craft, anything that they craft will be applicable citywide. Right. And then, that's indeed where I was going with this, is the pro- and that process un- ... And the reason why I didn't support waiting for that work group's work to finish, because this happens in, in, in everyone's district. Any change to that definition of family will affect us all. Mm-hmm. Um, good or bad. But then, you know, the thing that I wanna be clear about, th- the change in the definition of family does not affect some of the main problems that we create a moratorium for that the building inspection task forces work on. It doesn't affect trash, noise. It doesn't affect the parking and it doesn't affect the structures. Changing that definition has nothing to do with any of those four. It doesn't change it. We still have noise problems, we still have parking problems, we'll still have the trash problems. Until we address each one of those individually, and I think we are working on the noise ordinance, we're working on some trash changes, but we still have the structure issue. We haven't changed that. So th- this doesn't ... it's not a solve all. I just wanna be clear about that. Not saying I disagree or agree with it right now, but it's not a solve all. It's not gonna change it, not gonna stop the process, whether that moves forward or not. We still have other issues to solve here. Given that, m- my big concern, Rochelle, about the definition of family and the way we're currently enforcing it, I understand your department is handling the current enforcement. That's correct. Going forward, will you still handle the enforcement going forward? If we change this, goes to the planning commission, they change, it comes back, we, we finally pass it, who's gonna really ch- handle the enforcement long term? Do we have a plan for that? Because up until now, we haven't been. And that, and that's where my concern is. We're only gonna get tighter, so who's gonna go back and say, "Hey, this property was a conforming use before they're grandfathered." How are we gonna handle that? 'Cause it's gonna be a big issue. If there is an issue about whether or not a property has been grandfathered in, um ... Le- let us say that all these pass. And, um, it comes to the attention of the Division of Building Inspection, which is the official enforcement arm, that there are five or more unrelated adults living in a property. They would then give a notice of violation to that property owner. They would, um, have the option of applying to the Board of Adjustment, claiming that they are in fact a functional family, um, and, and meet enough of these factors that, that they do not have an adverse impact on their surrounding property. If they do not do that, if they do not apply for that or are denied that permit, then it would either go into a criminal citation, which is handled through the County Attorney's office, or it can be handled through the law department, as we have a couple of other cases where we file with the circuit court for injunctive relief, um, asking that the court order that the violations cease. So the enforcement process itself would not be altered. So it's gonna stay, and that indeed is my point, because as chairs of buil, as chair of the Building Inspection Task Force, we're in the middle of changing that process perhaps and looking at how we can do that better. And that's where I, I was hope you were going, Council Member Feigl. We have another task force that's working parallel to this issue with building inspection, 'cause what we do here is gonna affect them and how we interpret the zoning laws, and that's a big issue, and that's one we're trying to flush out on the Building Inspection Task Force. So I, I'm glad you said that, because there are some changes that need to be made on the enforcement arm of it, and I'm not sure if we're ready to pass this and, and move it forward. You know, I don't know if the planning commission, Chris, you said it, we would at least be a two-month process. Yeah. See where- Actually, they have a maximum of 60 days to hold a hearing. Right. But, but given this time of year on the calendar. Once you initiate, but there are... Right. Depends on the calendar, and there are legal ques, you know, legal notice requirements to hold the public hearing. It would probably, it wouldn't be any sooner is what I'm trying to say. It wouldn't be on this month's agenda. No. I mean- It would be April. Until the full council votes- Right. ... uh, there isn't anything to advertise, and there isn't any way we can get this in- Well, assuming we have a council meeting next Thursday night, we have two readings, it wouldn't be on the March 20-something agenda. The earliest, if you gave it two readings on March 11th by my estimation was April 8th, if the commission would agree to do it that soon. But that would be a tight window in terms of meeting the notice requirements. Okay. Thank you. But it's possible, April 8th. Thank you, sir. Appreciate you. I'm, I'm glad you both brought up the calendar question again, because, uh, for example, the, um, the motions that have been passed so far to initiate those text amendments would be discussed at the March 9th work session and either moved forward to go to the planning commission or not. And, uh, first, they'd get a first reading with council on the 11th, and either a second reading then or a second reading on March 25th. So it's, um, calendar wise, I think that's just important to remember. Uh, Council Member Lawless. Uh, I withdraw. Council Member Vice Mayor Gray. Uh, thank you, Madam Chairman. Um, I'm, I'm, I'm, uh, hitchhiking a little bit on my colleague, Council Member Stennet, right here on his comments. Uh, e- comments about trash and noise and, and, uh, traffic, they remind me of, uh, lessons that I got a long time ago from, um, there's a guy that influenced the Japanese management, an American, his name was Edward Deming. Some of y'all probably remember that name. He died about 10 years ago at the ripe age of 95. Deming actually took his theories to Japan and taught Japanese about modern management principles. One of the, one of the very basic and simple principles that Deming recommended a-and was translated into Japanese, the Japanese language for it, the Japanese word for it is genchi genbutsu. Okay. What does that mean? What it means is real simple. Put on your boots and go to the site to do problem-solving. Now, a lot of us have done that. I've admitted several times that the first time I really went on State and Elizabeth Streets was after I became a city councilman, council member. And what I saw there were symptoms, symptoms of decay, symptom, symptoms of distress, symptoms of economic destruction. You know, the root cause is not the noise and the traffic and the traff, the, and the trash. Those are symptoms. The root cause is the density. We have been violating laws of urban planning. Laws of urban planning are just like laws of physics. They are embedded over centuries, over time. And when we violate those laws, there are consequences, decay, destruction. We look at any city across this country, some of the icons of that we all know of are Detroit. Decay begins from the core and moves out. When neighborhoods are compromised, when neighborhoods that were organized around principles are compromised, decay sets in. This is not a new phenomenon. Other places just like Lexington have tackled these issues. University of Pennsylvania, Howard University, Georgia State. We now have the time, we have had the process, we have engaged the process, we have identified the symptoms, we have identified the root causes, we have created legislation, it has done, it has been done in a collaborative way. And surely, it is time to continue moving on with this. Taking these steps will allow more conversation, but it will set the bar, will set a new bar that recognizes this level of decay is destructive to our community, and it must stop. Thank you. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Chair. I, I just have to say that I, I kinda get confused, because on the one hand, we say this is not about student housing. On the other hand, then we start going back and talking about the decay around the university. Wha- now, what we're looking at now is a definition that is citywide, so let's all be very clear about that. This definition is citywide. We do need to address the problems around the university, but I think those problems are probably very, um, unique to the city. I don't think that we have the simi- the same similar problems that we have in other parts of the city. There may be a few pockets of it here and there, but there are some very key issues that, that affect those houses around the university, and we can't pretend that we aren't talking about student housing, because we are. And that's what this mayor's group is going to be talking about, is the student housing issue primarily. They will talk about this definition, because it is part of how you address th- the area around the university, but it has a much broader, um, a broader meaning, because it's going to be implemented across town. And you talked about it doesn't take care of the noise and the, and the traffic and all that, but let me just, uh, share with you that there has been one proposal put on the table that will address, in a very significant way, the parking issue that they're dealing with at the university. So, if we allow this group to move forward, we can't really anticipate what might come out of that meeting. They might come up with compromises. They might solve the parking problems. They might do all kinds of things, but if we don't give them the opportunity to meet without moving forward and making this committee, uh, a non-entity, we won't know what they'll, what they can come forward with. But the- Madam Chair, may I respond? Wha- um, what- are you finished or did you have more- I didn't mean to interrupt. Go ahead. I was just gonna... To your comment, Ch- uh, uh, Council member Feigl. Uh, I agree with you that the symptoms do transfer. What we have at the university, in the university context, is where, is th- where the tension has risen to a level that the lid has boiled over the top. The symptoms are translating into other neighborhoods around the community. The same patterns are. What we... Dealing with it and addressing it through these measures addresses where the lid is boiling, the water is boiling, the lid is jumping off the top. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, doesn't translate into it doesn't exist in other places. It does. Thank you. May I respond? Okay, um, well, Council Member Lawless is on to speak. If, if you wanna go ahead and respond, that's fine. I would like to respond. And then we'll go to Council Member Lawless. I think I lost my point . Wait just a second. I- do you wanna take a little break and let Council Member Lawless speak? And then you'll think of it. Okay. Council Member Lawless. Your phone . Um, it is a citywide issue, and there are, um, these problems in every district, and some of 'em, um, have created decay in the neighborhoods. And Council Member Feigl, one of your biggest concerns about, as you have expressed over and over again, about, uh, dealing with the density issue in, around the university is it might come to your district, the fifth district, uh, if something isn't done to keep the density in the third district. So, um, I also agree with, uh, Council Member, um, Stinnet and Gray. Um, again, um, there isn't a silver bullet that is gonna solve this problem. There is not one single solution that's gonna have a magic wand that's gonna solve the problems facing our community. And, um, we've addressed some with, uh, upping, um, code enforcement fines for those who are multiple offenders and just use it as a cost of doing business. We've, uh, looked at building without a permit, uh, and passed something on that, a fine for that. Um, I think the building inspection task force will have, uh, Council Member Stinnet, I'm giving you some praise here- ... uh, will have some other answers. I think we need better enforcement of the ordinances on the books. I think that the University of Kentucky's program is a step in the right direction, but not, uh, any one single thing is gonna solve this. And as far as, it is also about garbage, and, um- ... you know, sewage and storm water runoff and, um, those things. And I think that we can be very creative here, and we could also be really creative in helping with some of the prob- infrastructure problems, um, such as storm water runoff and parking if we look close, more closely at some of our laws surrounding that and using impervious surfaces that are getting better all the time, that aren't gravel and getting cheaper all the time. So, that's what I have to say and thank you. Um, Vice Mayor Gray, I had you on again, but did you say what you needed to say about the definition of family? Okay. Now, ca- Council Member Feigl. Thank you. I was, I was going to, to respond to Vice Mayor Gray's comment about the fact that this is boiling over, but that there are larger, uh, implications for these same issues in the rest of the city. And I just find it very curious that if in fact that's true, why have those folks not been invited to any of the tables that we have had to this point and time? They were not a part of the student housing task force, they were not a part of the moratorium group, and now they're not a part of the mayor's, uh, work group either. So, at what point do we begin to go out to the rest of the community to gather input from them? Okay. Okay. Comments on the definition of family? Well, I think it is important- Vice Mayor Gray. ... I think it's im- important to, to, to, to recognize what Council Member Feigl did have to say because that's important. You know, what I, what I was describing was that, you know, typically issues that ar- rise to the level of the council are issues where tension elevates itself to the point that things gotta be addressed one way or another, whether we want, whether we want 'em to or not. It's often inconvenient. And what we see, the patterns that we see and the level of the intensity of these patterns in this area are translating, that's what you just said, are translating themselves into other areas. The tension levels perhaps have not elevated to the same level as they have here, and hence, those people are not as engaged in it today. But that doesn't concern me because we all know, as council members, we've all said they are in our districts, they are present and we need to address them. So, that's, that would be my, my comment on what you were suggesting there, which is important observation. Thank you. The motion on the floor is to move forward to the full council for initiation of a text amendment for the definition of family as stated in number three. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? No. Let's do a hand vote. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Five. All those opposed? Four. This motion passes. Um, turning the page to functional family, number four. Are there any motions on this item? If I may just comment, four and five, in essence, are integral to each other because four- Okay. ... is the definition of- Yes. ... or factors related to functional family and five is the procedure, so they really- So let's- ... need to be considered. Okay, thank you very much, Rachelle. So let's combine four and five. Council Member Flawless. Um, these are sections that I have difficulty with, but I would like to move to put them forward to full council so it can be, um, a citywide open debate and solutions. Thank you very much. So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Um, moved and sec- moved by Lawless, second by Blues to send four and five to the full council for initiation of a text amendment. Uh, discussion? Questions? Council Member Blues. Uh, it does seem, uh, since we, since we are moving, uh, definition three forwards, uh, four and five are, uh, connected at the hip with it and, and, uh, s- so it would make good sense to, you know, to discuss this entire package, uh, because of the interconnectedness b- between them. Thank you. You're welcome. Is there any other comment on the motion? If not, um, perhaps we should just start with a hand vote. All those in favor, please raise your hand of moving four and five forward to the full council. Five. Uh, all those opposed? Four. So, that motion passes. Um, now, number seven, we sort of, uh, this is to eliminate the keeping of rumors or boarders by a resident family as a permitted accessory use in the single family and two family zones. Rachelle, tell us about this. Well, I think that the feeling here was, number one, I don't think that that is, um, a very common accessory use anymore as it was when this went in here, combined with the fact- ... that if we are going to alter the definition of family to include as many as four unrelated persons, then to leave this in as an accepted accessory use, will in fact have the effect of increasing the density back up to close to what the problem seems to be n- uh, at this point. Because those four unrelated people could then take on one or two boarders and y- and you are basically back into what seems to have been part of the problem from the beginning. So it's a- But the recommendation was to eliminate that as an accessory use. So it's a piece to make the other parts work? Uh, in effect, yes. Okay. Council Member Feigl. My, my biggest objection to this one is actually personal. Um, my husband's grandmother, after her husband died, actually, uh, rented out her, one of her bedrooms to a student to help pay the costs of her home. And I don't know, and I don't know if you all have done any kind of study to find out if this is pervasive or if it's, you know, not, not very often. You said, uh, you didn't think it was very often, but what kinda study has been done to determine that? Well, you need to understand that unless there are more than four unrelated adults living there, she can continue to do what she's doing. Because up to four unrelated adults is simply gonna be considered a family unit under the definition and we are not going to look at who's paying what or what the relationship is. It just is permitted. So unless it were one person taking in three or more boarders, which already would not be an accessory use, or- So then how do you read that? ... unless it's three people taking in more than one boarder... You see, you have to hit that threshold of four unrelated adults before we're going to look at that. So... And, and there, you know, whether or not that's an issue at that threshold level, I have to say I don't know. But it would... Th- that's where it would hit. Or if you had a family that already had, you know, four or more people and they took in one boarder, that could be an issue. I do not know what the statistics on that are. Did you read this? Is there... D- Were you finished? Now, the other alternative which, you know, this did not come forward because the, the work group preferred this, was to leave it in as a conditional use. You know, so it was either eliminate it or leave it in a- as a conditional use so that it would be looked at in terms of whether it was appropriate under each specific situation. But what came forward from the work group, and ultimately to this committee, was to just eliminate it. Is there any other comment or question, um, or a motion? Council Member Bleas? Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that, uh, item number seven be moved forward to the full council for consideration. So moved. Second. We have a motion by Bleas, second by Lawless, to move forward to the full council, uh, number seven to eliminate th- th- that... Number seven as a text amendment, to initiate a text amendment. Uh, any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? One... Is there just one no? Council Member Beard. All right. That, uh, motion is approved and will move forward as a, uh, initiation of a text amendment motion. So if I could just review, please. We have, um... One, two, three, four... We have motions to move forward to the full council, and this will be reported out on March the 9th at work session, to, uh, initiate text amendments on one, two, three, four and five were combined as one motion, uh, six and seven. And I believe we are out of time, so we won't get to discuss our, uh, issues in committee, but, um, I'm talking with various ones of you about the issues you have in committee. So I would entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. And before we vote, I thank all of those of you who took time to come here today. All those in favor of adjourning, please say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? All right, the meeting's adjourned.