# Special Planning Committee - March 23, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 23, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1309 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1309?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-03-23 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 19,097 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council met on March 23, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., with Chair CM Gorton presiding. During this session, the Council addressed seven agenda items focused on residential zoning and housing definitions. All seven items were approved, including matters related to residential zone issues, residential additions, items referred to committee, and definitions of family, functional family, fraternity or sorority house, and congregate living facility. The Council took one motion and vote during the meeting and heard seven public comments from members of the community. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on March 23, 2010: * Gorton * Blues * Gray * Ellinger * James * Lawless * Beard * Feigel * Stinnett * McChord No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The Council voted to move all recommended text amendments forward to the full Council for work session. [timestamp: 1:55:06] **Motion Details:** Vice Mayor Gray moved, and Council Member Lawless seconded, a motion to advance the following recommended text amendments: - Changes to the definition of family - Changes to the definition of boarding/lodging house - Changes to the definition of congregate living facility - Changes to the definition of fraternity/sorority house **Vote Result:** The motion passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes. All ten Council members present voted in favor: Gorton, Blues, Gray, Ellinger, James, Lawless, Beard, Feigel, Stinnett, and McChord. **Conditions:** The amendments include modifications to the single-family dwelling definition to clarify that expansion limits are based on square footage as of January 1, 2010. ## Public Comment Seven speakers addressed the council during the public comment period, raising concerns about enforcement, permanence, and the practical implications of the proposed zoning changes. **Enforcement and Permitting** Todd Johnson [timestamp: 1:11:46] expressed concerns about unintended consequences for remodelers and requested clarification on enforcement, permitting processes, and documentation requirements for property expansions under the new zoning rules. Dewey Crow [timestamp: 1:16:02] responded by explaining that enforcement would be complaint-driven and that building inspection would rely on lease records and property history to determine compliance with the new definitions. **Permanence and Certainty** Richard Murphy [timestamp: 1:38:31] stated that the group sought certainty and permanence in the new zoning rules to avoid recurring disputes and future legislative battles over the same issues. Craig Harden [timestamp: 1:40:04] emphasized the need for permanence in the new zoning rules and highlighted additional policy changes, such as the university's off-campus housing office, as tools to improve community outcomes. **Implementation and Guidelines** Chris King [timestamp: 1:44:58] advocated for the creation of interpretive guidelines to document the intent behind the new definitions to aid staff in enforcement and reduce ambiguity. **Broader Impact** Council Member Blues [timestamp: 1:27:30] requested a summary of how the new definitions would affect city-wide density, emphasizing the need for context on the long-term impact of the changes. Ted Cowan [timestamp: 1:35:53] reiterated that the goal was to slow down unsustainable conversions and high-density encroachment into single-family neighborhoods, not to eliminate all group living. ## Contested Items Three significant points of contention emerged during the March 23, 2010 meeting: **Definition of Congregate Living Facility** Council Member James raised concerns about removing the definition of congregate living facility, arguing that this approach would leave non-university congregate living arrangements unaddressed. James advocated for broader city-wide coverage beyond the university area, contending that the definition should remain to ensure comprehensive regulation across all residential zones. **Expansion Limits on Residential Additions** A split vote occurred regarding expansion limits for residential properties. The disagreement centered on whether a 25% expansion limit should be applied as an absolute restriction or calculated based on the date of permit application. The committee ultimately clarified that the expansion limit applies to square footage as measured on January 1, 2010, establishing a fixed baseline for determining permissible expansion. **Use of the Term 'Student' in Definitions** Council Member Lawless urged the committee to avoid using the term "student" in zoning definitions. Lawless emphasized that using student-specific language would limit the scope of the zoning changes to university areas, when the regulations should apply city-wide. This discussion reflected broader concerns about ensuring the zoning amendments addressed residential density and use issues throughout the entire city rather than focusing narrowly on university-adjacent neighborhoods. ## Residential Zone Issues [timestamp: 08:56] The meeting included a discussion of proposed changes to the definition of boarding or lodging houses in residential zones. Logan Askew and Rochelle Boland led this agenda item. The proposed changes involved two key modifications: - Removal of the phrase "rooms for hire" from the existing definition - Clarification that the definition applies to situations where five or more unrelated adults share living and kitchen facilities in R3 and R4 zones The outcome of this discussion was approval of the proposed changes to the residential zone definition. ## Residential Additions The board reviewed proposed changes to the definitions of single-family and two-family dwellings [timestamp: 0:25:36]. Key speakers on this item included Logan Askew, Bill Lear, and Dewey Crow. The discussion centered on a new exception that would allow continued use of properties where five or more unrelated individuals have resided during the past five years. This exception would be subject to three conditions, though the specific conditions were not detailed in the available materials. The item was approved by the board. ## Items Referred to Committee [timestamp: 06:30] Chair CM Gorton presented this agenda item, which addressed the authorization of the Special Planning Committee to refer matters to the full Council. The item confirmed that the Special Planning Committee is authorized to refer the following categories of matters to the full Council: - Parks - Planning - Zoning - Housing - Transportation - Grants - Legislation - Social services The outcome of this item was approved. ## Definition of Family The council discussed and approved a revised definition of family during this agenda item. [timestamp: 00:20:30] **Key Speakers** Logan Askew and Rochelle Boland led the discussion on this matter. **Changes Approved** The revised definition of family incorporates "housekeeping unit" as an interchangeable term within the definition. Additionally, the council added subsection E to the definition, which references single- and two-family dwelling exceptions for existing uses. **Outcome** The revised definition of family was approved. ## Definition of Functional Family [timestamp: 0:47:02] Logan Askew led the discussion on the definition of functional family during this agenda item. The meeting confirmed that there would be no changes to the existing functional family definition, which remains unchanged from prior proposals. The discussion resulted in an approved outcome, with the group accepting the continuation of the current definition without modification. ## Definition of Fraternity or Sorority House [timestamp: 0:47:02] The body approved a revised definition of fraternity or sorority houses during this agenda item. **Key Speakers** Logan Askew and Chris King led the discussion on this matter. **What Was Approved** The revised definition includes the following elements: - Recognition of fraternity and sorority houses as serving dual purposes: both living quarters and gathering spaces - Extension of official recognition to groups actively seeking official status - Specific criteria for recognition, including the presence of signage and hosting of events **Outcome** The revised definition was approved by the body. ## Congregate Living Facility The council discussed the definition of congregate living facility in the zoning code [timestamp: 0:16:04]. Key speakers on this matter included Logan Askew and Richard Murphy. The council decided to remove the definition of congregate living facility from the zoning code. This removal was determined to be appropriate because the definition had become redundant in light of other recent changes to the code, particularly the adoption of a new fraternity and sorority house definition. The outcome of this discussion was approval to proceed with removing this definition from the zoning code. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to move all recommended text amendments forward to the full Council for work session, including changes to definitions of family, boarding/lodging house, congregate living facility, and fraternity/sorority house. --- ## Full transcript Music guitar solo Thank you. five hours in a room together, and they've been discussing various points of the density issues and the zoning ordinance text amendments. And I just want to thank you very much. I really appreciate your work. And so with that said, we have a packet, and I believe Paul has the memorandum. memorandum if you don't have a copy of the memorandum and the actual proposal. So with that said, I think that either Logan Askew, our Commissioner of Law, or Rochelle Boland in our Law Department will work us through the proposed text amendments. We'll have any comments from any of the other folks who helped you on this, and then we'll have counsel comments. So welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to recognize some very good staff support that we had from Chris King and his folks, too. Of course. I'm sorry, Chris. How could I forget you? Chris King. Hopefully you all have had a chance to read the memo that accompanied the proposal that was sent out Friday afternoon. And I apologize for not getting that out earlier. but we met Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. And so a lot of work has gone into this. But I think what I tried to do in the memo was to go through the report that came out of the planning committee and deal with it in that fashion. So why don't we try to do that now? Thank you. That was approved at the last work session by the Council. And as you all recall, when we addressed you last Tuesday, we indicated that while you were going to, we were suggesting that you go ahead and place on the docket for this Thursday night certain of the proposed ordinance changes, that those were subject to possible amendments, too. And as we started looking at it, we concluded that that text amendment could be improved upon. And so what we have done is we have actually streamlined that definition a bit. I think one of the major things we've done is we have eliminated the phrase rooms for hire, which is, I don't know, I think Bill Lear said that had been in the definition for decades. But anyway, what we've done is we have streamlined that definition to make it clear that a boarding or lodging house is a residential building or part thereof for five or more adults living together, but not as a family or housekeeping unit. So we have a couple, we have four factors there that should be considered in trying to determine that. So the changes there were not great, but I think pretty significant. Commissioner, do you prefer, Council members, would you like to ask questions as we go along, or would you like to save them? That might be a good idea, Madam Chair, if we could do that. Yes, if anybody's got a question about boarding or lodging house. And then you can always ask them later and be sure you're logged into your computer. Council Member James. Thank you, Chair. I have a question about the whole process of modifying the other language. I don't know that I, is it agreement with the committee that we said the other definitions could be changed or amended? I must have missed that part. But the committee actually moved, there was a motion to move all the rest forward. I think if there are proposals to change, they can always be amended if the committee thinks that's for the good. Okay, so we're just reviewing their amendments, but we can go back to our original if we so choose. Is there any way we could stay focused then on family, which was? If we can what? The definition of family was what they were supposed to be working on, right? Well, they were, the main ones were three, four, and five, which were definition of family, definition of functional family, and the Board of Adjustment process. But, Commissioner, obviously you did a little tinkering with some of the others. Right. But I think last Tuesday when we discussed with you all that we felt like the definitions on 3, 4, and 5, which are all family-related definitions, would not be moved to the docket because we did want to spend some time with that. But we also indicated that there might be some other definitions that needed to be tweaked a bit, including those that were advanced to the docket. So in this particular case, what we would be suggesting to you is that we think it would be appropriate to amend the docket to reflect this change in this definition, which you approved for the docket last Tuesday. Are the changes in the other definitions related to the definition of family, which the group was supposed to be addressing? The group, yes. Yes. Okay. Yes. My only concern, and I mean, I'll let it go, but my only concern is that there were a minimum number of people around the table discussing these amendments to boarding and lodging and the other things when I thought that they had a specific task. So I'm just worried about condensing that group and then offering them as one collaborative kind of thing moving forward. So that's my only concern, but I'll let it go if the committee sees it's appropriate. And I think that the committee can do what it wants to do with it. Did anyone have, oh, Council Member Feigel. Thank you, Chair. I certainly, for one, am very interested in hearing what all the discussion was and the recommendations that came from this group, because I do think it represented certainly the opposing views. And if there were occasions to go back and look at some of the amendments, or excuse me, some of the items that we passed forward, and there was an opportunity to maybe compromise on some of those in order to get agreement from these opposing parties, I think that's legitimate and that we need to consider that. Certainly this committee doesn't have to look at that as an amendment, but certainly as it goes forward to the work session or to the docket, then it would be inappropriate to make an amendment there. But I do think it's worth listening to what their recommendations were and offering an opportunity for them to make these little tweaks in order to come together as a compromise. Are there any other questions on the process or boarding or lodging house? Madam Chair, I forgot to mention a very important change, and that had to do with the locks on doors. You will notice that that is eliminated. I put that in my memo, but that became a very big issue as we discussed this, particularly from the landlord's perspective in terms of what students want and parents want as far as student rentals go and wanting that kind of security. So you'll notice that that provision has been eliminated. That is the blocks on the doors. If there are another, Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. What we have in front of us with your memo and then what we have, the redacted copies and then the new, is that what is on the books right now, boarding, house, lodging, and then underneath it would be what boarding and lodging are put together? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. Do you want to go on to dwelling single family? Well, let me mention item number two that was on the, that got passed to the docket two. has to do with the definition of congregate living facility. And as we continue to discuss this, we felt like that was a provision or a definition that did not need to be included after all, and that based on the other changes that were made that were advancing, that that would not be necessary to have a definition of congregate living facility. You'll notice in the current definition of lodging house, it refers to a congregate living arrangement. And so that, too, has been deleted. So the congregate living facility, we're leaving now. There's one more question before you go on. Okay. Council Member James. Commissioner, can you explain that one more time, why you feel like congregate living would not need to be included? And is it just relative to the university area where this was talking about? Because do we agree, was there agreement in the group that it didn't need to be defined even outside of the university area? That's correct. And what we're talking about here are text amendments that would apply in all R1 and R2 areas that are R1 and R2 specific. And, for instance, the definition of family would apply throughout the zoning ordinance. So it's not university-related. It applies county-wide. And why would congregate living not need to be defined? Congregate living is not currently defined. Okay. In the ordinance. And there is a provision in the building code that refers to a congregate living facility, and there was some thought that it might be helpful to have that in there because it is a term that appears in the building code, and it was a term that appeared, or at least congregate living arrangement, appeared in the current lodging house definition. But as we looked at it, we felt like the definition was unnecessary in view of the other changes that were being made. It just didn't need to be in there. We feel like what we're trying to accomplish with that is actually accomplished through the other changes that are being proposed. Was there an example given or anything as to why it? because evidently there was some conversation before about it. Yeah, I'll let, I see Mr. Murphy would like to address that. Welcome, Richard Murphy. Thank you. I was just recalling the discussion, and the discussion was that there was a proposal to define the word congregate living, but the word congregate living was not used anywhere else in the zoning ordinance, So it was misleading and confusing to have a term defined that was not used anywhere. Except for in the building code. Except for in the building code. And the building code is totally separate from the zoning ordinance. It's enforced separately, and there's not a crossover. The zoning ordinance doesn't reference the building code terminology and vice versa. So there was no use for it. the zoning ordinance. We were dealing with all those issues through the other definitions, I think is one of the discussions that we had. Anything congregate living facility could do, we were dealing with through the other terminology that Mr. Askew will be discussing with you. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Logan, when you said boarding and lodging house, You said R1 and R2. Is it R3 and R4? Yes, it's not permitted in an R1 and R2. It's permitted in an R3 by right up to 8 and conditional use above 8. Okay, thank you. Okay, we don't seem to have any more questions right now, so if you'll go ahead, please. The third definition, and now we're getting into the family definitions, which were not advanced to the docket. And the only significant change that was made in the family definition is including, as part of that title, it's family or housekeeping unit. So those words are now interchangeable. Some place you will find that term single housekeeping unit elsewhere in the code. So you will have the same definition that will apply to, that will define housekeeping unit as defines family. We think that clarification was necessary. There was not a definition of housekeeping unit elsewhere in the zoning code. So we have streamlined a bit the first paragraph before you get to the factors. It was unnecessary, for instance, to repeat that it was a single housekeeping unit. So we're saying a person living alone or any of the following groups living together and sharing common living and kitchen facilities. The factors remain the same, with one exception. We've added subsection E, which will tie back to the definitions under single-family and multifamily dwelling, and specifically the ability of folks that have been using these properties within the five years prior to January 1, 2010, for five or more unrelated adults. we've made special provision in those two definitions, which were not a part of the Planning Committee's initial report. I'll get to that in just a minute. But the thought was it was necessary under this definition to specifically refer to the single-family and multifamily definitions. The functional family section. Well, if we can. I'm sorry, sir. Wait just one moment. There may be questions I don't know about the single-family dwelling and the new language. And you also, did you want to talk about the three, subject to the following, and the three conditions? Are you talking about on, are we now the single family dwelling or just family definition? I was on the family. Well, are you following the new text or the old text, Logan? I am following. You're following the new text. I am following the planning committee's recommendation. Okay. And you accepted all the definitions, all the changes except three, four, and five. Okay. I think what people up here are looking at is the new text. So I want to be sure we're all looking at the same document. So you're looking at the old document. I'm looking at both. I was trying to look. I was just looking at the planning committee report, and there were seven changes. And you advanced all of the changes to the docket Thursday night except three, four, and five. And so I was just trying to go down the planning committee report. So then you're going to go back and look at the new text. Yes, as we hit those items. Council members, do you have the new text? I see a lot of yeses. Do you have the old text? Most don't. So. All right. Is this the new text right here? The proposal has across the top possible text amendments presented to be presented to the Special Counsel Planning Committee meeting March 23rd, and it's dated March 19th. Yes. If. And in my cover letter, Madam Chair, what I tried to do is refer back to the Planning Committee report that reported out seven changes. So I've tried to address them in that order. So just to help the committee, you're actually going through your memo more so than the actual new text. Now, I'll be happy. If you want to go to single-family dwelling, we can do that. Okay. All right. That's fine. On single-family dwelling, that was not proposed to be changed by the Planning Committee. As you'll recall, there was a discussion of a proposal by the Landlord Association about current uses of property that might not fit the definition, the new definitions. And so what is being proposed is that if a building was occupied by five or more unrelated individuals at any time within the five years prior to January 1, 2010, that use can continue subject to the three factors that are in the text amendment. The first is that going forward, that use would be limited to six or fewer unrelated adults. Secondly, the use of the building as a rental dwelling has not been abandoned, and that is a term that appears elsewhere in the zoning code. if the property use was abandoned, then the new rules would apply. That would be that the current definition or the proposed definition of family would apply to the future use of that property. Item C has been included to address the so-called vinyl box issue and expansion of current properties. And so a building that has been used by five or more unrelated individuals within the five years prior to January 2010 cannot be expanded by more than 25 percent unless the building has been expanded by 25 percent or more within that five-year period, in which event it could only be expanded by 5 percent. So if you've already expanded by 25 percent or more within that five-year period, you can only expand an additional 5 percent. We have a few questions. All right. Council Member Stimmit. Thank you, Chair. Logan, what you just said on item C, what's so magical about that five-year period? Why not say if it's ever been expanded by 25% or more, then it would be limited to 5%? What was the thought process? The thought process was is that if you look at that date and time, January 1, 2010, there could be some properties that had vacancies on that date. And so the group tried to say, well, let's figure out a time period in which the property was used in this fashion and allow them to go forward under these special rules. And the five-year period was just agreed upon. It could be a different period. Well, I'm talking about just for the expansion, just for the vinyl box issue. Why not? Because the way it reads is anything before January 1, 2005 could expand more than 5% if they already had 25, right? Yes. So, well, yeah, but it's still legal to get a building permit to expand. So why would you limit it just to that corridor five years so that owners who did this prior to January 1st were giving them preferential treatment because if they didn't get their permit or if they got it in 2004, they can go ahead and expand by more than. Well, the January 1, 2005 was used in order to be consistent with the five years prior to January 1, 2010. In other words, you're looking at that same five-year period. I just think it gives the owners of properties who expanded prior to January 1, 2005, a better deal, because they can expand by more than 5 percent. But owners who did it between that five-year period are stuck at 5 percent. Okay. By the way, and you'll notice the last section is that if somebody fits within that category where there is that prohibition, they can still apply, make application, and have the BOA make an exception to it. So there is an out there for someone that's caught in this rule but has a circumstance that they believe would justify having the ability to expand more than those parameters. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. Logan, that final 5%, is that 5% of the original, you know, the original square footage, or 5% of the original plus the additional square footage? It would be 5% of the size of the building at the time of passage. At the time of passage. Right. The passage of the new Zoda. Right. In other words, you wouldn't go back and say, okay, what was the original size of this building? And if there had been other additions prior to that five-year period, I think those new additions would be considered as part of that expansion that we're talking about. Am I – you all want to comment on that? I don't know that that was specifically addressed, Council Member Blues, and that's why I'm looking back to some of the team members here. 5% whether it deals with the original building size or whether it's the size of the building sometime later. I think the way you would interpret it is at the time you come in and apply. Yeah, that's, I think that's the way. Well, welcome, Bill Lear, to the microphone. Did you want to go ahead? Can I add? Sure. Just so it was clear to everyone. And I think at any time, what you would do is look at this on its face at the time somebody walks in for a building permit. So at that time, your dwelling unit has X number of square feet in it, and you would take 5% of that. So, I mean, it is theoretically possible that you could inch up in 5%, but from a practical standpoint, not likely. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Are there other council questions? Yes, Council Member James. Thanks, Chair. Logan. Under the section you were just reading, is that only for rental? Does that only applies to rental units? Everything you just said? It applies to a building that's been occupied for residential purposes by five or more unrelated individuals within a five-year period prior to January 1, 2010. It does not say rental. It just says five or more unrelated individuals. Well, it says it includes, but it doesn't say it's only relevant to. Okay. We haven't specified in here, but by saying that if they abandon the rental use, in other words, in essence, if it becomes owner-occupied, then they lose their ability to use this five or more up to six occupancy, and they will fall under the new definitions that they are adopted. So in effect, this will only be applying to rental units. So it would be considered a permittable use, not a conditional use? That's correct. The only way it would fall under a specific approval by the Board of Adjustment is if they want to exceed these provisions, and then they're going to have to show some special circumstances that differentiate them from everyone else in that situation. And how will we go about knowing whether or not it's continued to be a rental dwelling versus not? I mean, is that just upon someone saying, I think my neighbor is doing this? Right. I mean, if someone calls, you know, of course, almost all of the enforcement under the zoning ordinance is complaint driven. If someone calls and says, look, I have five or six what appear to be unrelated adults living there, part of the investigation would be show us your leases for that period, showing that it's been used continuously as rental property, and show us that, in fact, it was used by five or six or more students during this relevant five-year period to show that you've qualified for this particular definition. Okay. Could we not make this a conditional instead of a permittable use? Part of the negotiations and part of the ability to compromise was to put this in this way. I mean, if there's a question as to whether the facts support this use, that question would be sent to the Board of Adjustment as an administrative appeal. But the landlords were not willing to put themselves in a position of always having to go in for every one of their properties that has had five or more persons living in it in the last five years and have to apply for conditional use for each and every one. So that simply wasn't a point that we could agree upon. Okay. And what about if ownership of the property changes? If it is still rental property, the thought was we did not want to take that market value away from the landlords. This is rental property. We invested in it, rental property. We want to be able to sell it as rental property if that's the best way for us to sell it. So the only way on a change of ownership that they would lose this is if it becomes owner-occupied, then it's gone forever. So kind of what happens from this would be that we'd have set properties pretty much that would be identified as rental in perpetuity, and that would be then marketed as, if they were ever to sell that, be marketed as rental. So we would almost be creating these rental, continuous rental units. Well, I think that's what we have now. And the thought was by saying that this provision is eliminated once it becomes owner-occupied, our feeling was that gave these neighborhoods, if these limitations go into effect on number of people that can live there, and if the neighborhood starts to be restored to owner-occupied, being close to downtown, people want to live there, it will hopefully gradually eliminate if the neighborhoods start to recover. But in essence, that's what's been going on for a great period of time is that these have always been rentals. So I think there may be, in fact, a taking issue by not allowing them to continue with rental use. But we're trying to make it more reasonable with respect to the impact on the neighborhoods. Okay. Thanks, Rochelle. Thanks, Chair. Council Member Stemmett. Rochelle and Logan, I think this needs to be cleaned up a little bit and make sure we're differentiating between owner-occupied and a rental unit. Because this applies to every owner-occupied unit, a single-family owner-occupied unit, right, in terms of the building limitations, the building expansion limitations? Or would that only come into play if it was used as rental, right? Well, if the first section or the first sentence of the definition, if you constitute a family or a housekeeping unit, then these provisions are not going to apply these factors. These factors apply if there has been a use of the property by five or more unrelated individuals within the five years prior to January 1, 2010. Of which none are owners, correct? Because one of those five could technically be an owner and rent to four of his buddies. That's true. So how does that come to that definition? I think that's why in the course of discussing this with the representative, the landlords, we did not want to use the term, if it becomes owner-occupied, they lose this. That's why we didn't want to do that, because what we were hearing is a lot of people will buy a house for their children to live in while they go to UK, and they will rent to a couple of other students that live there with their children and then use it as rental ongoing. So the thought was we didn't want to say if an owner lives there at all, we're not going to allow you to have this exception. The question is whether it's been used for rental. If they stop using it for rental at all, then it ends. So if it's owner occupied by no one but, you know, the owners, say three people go together and buy a house, and they're the only ones living there, they would never again be able to get this above four unless they meet our current definitions of functional family and that kind of thing. So we try to avoid the owner-occupied and concentrate on if it's rental property, it can get this exception. If it ceases to be rental property, it just becomes a single family, same as any other. And to get this exception, they have to meet A, B, and C. All criteria apply, right? Not just one or the other. That's correct. All apply. That's correct. All of them will apply. If you take advantage of this exception, you have to meet these conditions. All three. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Yes, thank you. I think it's also important that we quit using the term student because it's not just about around the university or the third district. It is citywide. And so if we could limit, watch our terms, I think that would be really helpful. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Madam Chair. Logan, something just popped into my mind when we were talking about change of ownership. What passes when ownership changes? Where is the evidence of what might have happened in 2006 or 2007 or 2008? and is everybody going to be aware enough to ask the seller to give them copies of leases? That seems a little problematic. It's a technical type of a situation, but at the same time, I can see people scurrying around trying to find the persons, and it could get, again, problematic. I can understand your concern. Of course, the fact of the matter is this arises any time someone purchases a piece of property that, in fact, is, now we set this up so it's not grandfathered in, but it's a built-in exception, and I think it is incumbent on the purchaser, if he's buying this as investment property, to be informed of, you know, the limitations of that investment. I don't know whether the Landlord Association would have any suggestions as to notification upon sale or transfer, but from our point of view, it would be incumbent upon the new owner, if they're going to take advantage of this exception, to provide us the evidence necessary to show that the property qualifies for that. I'm really not sure how we could notify. I'm not either. That's why it's problematic, I guess. But, I mean, you know, I guess the way I look at it is hopefully if someone is buying rental property for investment purposes, I would hope they would be sophisticated enough to contact building inspection to determine the appropriate zoning and permitted uses within that area, at which point they would be informed of this aspect of the property. Mr. Lear. No, go ahead. Can I maybe help a little bit on that? Again, when you buy a piece of property that is currently rented, there are several things that are going to happen. You're going to get the leases. The deposits that they've made, which have to be kept in a separate account, are transferred from the seller to the buyer, so you're going to know how many they are. And the reality is there's probably no property out there today that is at least marketed for fewer occupants than it was at any time in the immediate past. So there's a theoretical possibility that there could have been a situation where maybe five years earlier, if the property is transferred a couple of times, you would lose track. But as a practical matter, in the sale of rental property, you're going to get those records and get those lease files, and I doubt you would run a real risk of losing track of that sort of thing. And copies would suffice as opposed to the originals? I'm sure. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions at this point from Council members? If not, we'll ask you to continue. Commissioner? I appreciate the tag team effort with the different folks who were in these meetings. Well, we have something we need to clarify that was just said a minute ago, but we'll come back to that if that's okay with everyone. Okay. Because of the changes to single family and some of the other definitions, the two-family dwelling needed to also be tweaked. And so you will notice that it is essentially the same as the single family, except that it applies per unit as opposed to – because you can have two units. R2 is typically a duplex. And so you essentially double it from single family. Item D was added to address the situation where a property owner had one unit on a property zoned R2 but wished to develop a second unit. And so that is addressed there. And what it says is that those size restrictions will not apply if you have no unit at all. But you would have to limit yourself to four unrelated adults per dwelling unit. So you would have eight total in the duplex. Council members, are there any questions about the dwelling to family? So in essence, D allows an owner who only has one unit on an R2 to add the second unit. Correct. Subject to the limitation of four unrelated persons per dwelling unit. I don't see any questions, so let's proceed. Madam Chair, I dealt with a minute ago the family or housekeeping unit definition, and again, there was only one significant change, and that was the addition of item E, which specifically refers back to the definitions of single-family and two-family dwelling. And that's in there in order to address the provision that would allow a current use to continue as long as it's limited to six or fewer unrelated adults, as long as it complies with those exceptions under single-family and two-family dwelling. Okay. Committee members, are there any questions about family or housekeeping unit? On functional family, no change. So the functional family stayed exactly as it was previously proposed? That is correct. Okay. Now, as you know, we do not have a definition of fraternity or sorority house presently. That was a recommendation out of the Student Housing Task Force, and the Planning Committee also recommended an addition of that text amendment to include that definition in the zoning code. As we went back over it, we felt like it needed to be changed a bit. And you will notice, for instance, Council Member James, that we've eliminated the reference to congregate living facility. That's one of those places where because of the change in definition of fraternity or sorority house, we did not need congregate living facility defined. The main part of the definition remains in terms of being recognized by the college, university, or seminary. However, we made two changes there in the beginning. Not only can it be used as a living quarters, but it can also be used as a gathering quarters. As you all may recall, there's been some discussion about the use of houses. Somebody used the term, I think, satellite fraternity house or something like that, where people might not necessarily live, but it's a gathering place. And so we wanted the definition to be broad enough to encompass that kind of activity. In addition, the neighborhoods were also interested in making sure that it was not only those groups that have officially been recognized, but those that were seeking recognition by the college, university, or seminary. As we understand, there are some places where folks are trying to start a fraternity or sorority house, or fraternity or sorority, they've purchased a home, and as they're using it in this fashion, even though they haven't gotten that official recognition yet. We felt it was also important to identify some things that would be criteria or factors to consider if you had a fraternity or sorority house. So we've included the signage, fraternity or sorority sponsored social activities, and events to which fraternity or sorority alumni or prospective members are invited. So we felt like we came up with those criteria which could be used to further show if you have a fraternity or sorority house. We have a few questions. Council Member James. Thank you. Commissioner, that's where when you made your reference regarding the congregate living definition, That's where I was going is you used the reason why that wasn't needed is because you had the other definitions. In particular, you mentioned fraternity and sorority houses. And going back to what Council Member Law has mentioned, this is not just a university issue. So I was supportive of a lot of the meat of this information because congregate living was defined, and that was something that would be relevant in some areas that I'm thinking about that affect my district. so that you know i feel as if there are the people that were in the room may have been thinking about the university area and seems like that was being heavily referenced and my concern is this is going to affect the entire city and we have things congregate living arrangements that are happening throughout the city that need to be addressed through this and if they're not captured through this, then I don't know, you know, I mean, I feel like it's incomplete if we don't address it. So I hope that you understand, I do understand that for your purposes of the four of you that were together, how many of you were together, you felt like you were taking care of what needed to be taken care of, but there are other congregate living facility issues that are happening throughout the city that aren't relevant to the university, and they're not defined by fraternity or sorority house. So I hope that the committee understands that, and I could go into more detail if you so fit, if that's necessary. Some of you probably know what I'm thinking about and some references, but I do hope that we'll consider keeping that in there, keeping that language in there. If anything, it's additional information that's needed. I mean, why eliminate if it's just additional? I don't know if it would be helpful. I think I know what you're referring to, and I'm not sure if it falls under this or something else, but it would be helpful maybe to eventually get to where we have some discussion. I'm not familiar with the situation that Council Member James is talking about, but we could see how that particular situation is addressed here. The other place where congregate living was mentioned was in the lodging house definition, and we've eliminated that as part of the lodging house definition. I think it doesn't help your situation. I don't think it does. And I'll just say, you know, we have nonprofits that have, they get houses for people to live in, and they won't fit under lodging house. They're part of a group. Similar to fraternity, you could pretty much take the fraternity language and fill that in with non-profit entity and, you know, change some of that wording around. But it's a very similar thing. They're identified with this particular group. I don't know if they're sharing food or not. Who knows? But, you know, I think we need to, if this is going to be holistic and we're trying to take care of everything within the city and not just the university, I would ask that maybe we delve into these, what I'm talking about, about the nonprofit groups that have houses and have people living in the houses, maybe in our one and our two areas. I think part of the answer to that is, since the term congregate living facility at this time does not exist anywhere in the zoning ordinance, just by putting it in as a definition is not going to create it as a prohibited use because it's not listed as a prohibited use anywhere. So that's one way to look at it. The other way is by adding a number to family and by requiring that if you exceed that number, you're going to have to qualify as a functional family. And if you look at functional family, we have specifically exempted that a functional family cannot include, and we have A through E, I would suggest that probably the groups you're describing would be more likely to be the same as or extremely similar to one of those groups. But at any rate, under our new proposed definitions, they would not qualify as a family, so they would not be a permitted use. So I think the feeling was that when you look at something that's not expressly listed, you have to look at what it is closest to, and I think the arrangement you're talking about would be closest to a boarding or lodging house or one of these items that are exempted from qualification as a functional family. So I think that it would be covered under those terms. Well, I'm reading through A through E. It does not fit those specifically, but if I could give you some language for an F to consider, it may encompass that. That's a very good possibility. That would be a very appropriate place to put something like that. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner, my question has to do with the additional language on fraternity or sorority house, a building used as a living and or gathering quarters for students and so forth. Would this make it possible for a fraternity or sorority to have more than one fraternity or sorority house? So let's say, as an example, a fraternity house on campus where alcohol would be prohibited, and a satellite house of gathering quarters off campus that would be used in essence as a party house. So, in other words, would this enable a fraternity or sorority to have those two facilities, two houses? I don't believe there's any prohibition on the number of fraternity or sorority houses a particular fraternity or sorority could have. That's not addressed here. I know that one of the concerns of, is the party house off campus? And I'm wondering whether this might, indeed this language, the gathering quarters might facilitate that. People are whispering in the commissioner's ear. I'm sorry. He's getting, this reminds me for people at home. It looks like I've got three people standing up that want to address it. A fraternity or sorority house is prohibited in R1 and R2. Would you repeat that, please? Yes, a fraternity or sorority house is prohibited in an R1 and R2, and it's only a conditional use in an R3 and R4. So you'd actually have to apply for a permit, and you'd have to go to the BOA to get it in an R3 or R4, but it would be prohibited in R1 and R2. Chris King, welcome. Welcome back. I wanted to say these definitions, and the reason we changed the definition was to address the concern that you have, because we were aware that you have like a fraternity on campus that then put some of their members living as a family, perhaps, in having the party and satellite house. That's why in this definition we were careful not to limit the number. If you look at this definition, if someone is doing any of these activities, they clearly then fall in a fraternity or sorority house, even if there's only two or three people living there. And then we would be able to engage and enforce and say, you have to be in R3 or R4, and you have to go to the Board of Adjustment. So this definition was changed from the one that you saw earlier to tighten it up even further to address the issue of the satellite house. Okay, thank you. That's very helpful and encouraging. Council Member Lawless. I think one of the things we have to remember, too, is this is about density, zoning. It's not about behaviors. And so those need to be addressed in a different document. So if somebody, no matter who they are, is having a party house where they make noise and behave badly, burn couches or each other in toilet paper, that those are behavioral issues that aren't zoning issues, I guess. What we're dealing with here is density and neighborhoods. Does that help? Thank you. There are no other questions. All right. I've already dealt with the issue of the functional family, and when you get to the next item on your sheet, we've added the term functional in front of family when a matter goes to the Board of Adjustment, to clarify that and tie that back to the definition of functional family. You're on item three of the new? Right. Thank you. The next item, item four, there's no change there. It was proposed by the committee to eliminate a reference to rumors or borders by a family, and so that's been taken out. Did you want to explain why that was taken out? Well, I believe under the current definition, you can have someone that owns and occupies their property can have up to two borders. Is that right, Chris? Four in R3 and R4. And four in R3 and R4. So I believe that's unnecessary given the definition of family and these other definitional changes that we've talked about. Now, Madam Chair, if I might, if there aren't any other questions, I want to go back to something that we discussed a minute ago under single family. Okay, that would be fine. So we're going back to single family dwelling. And it would also apply under multi-family dwelling, and it has to do with a question someone raised about the 25 percent, you can expand up to 25 percent unless you have expanded within the five-year period 25 percent, in which event you'd be limited to 5 percent. And I think there was a – Ted, do you want to address that? I think this was a provision that was very important to the neighborhoods. the neighborhoods. And I think in order to clarify this, I want Ted to address that provision and how this would work. Welcome, Ted Cowan. Good morning. I guess this is the problem with having people reading things from different perspectives and thinking that something says something different from what other people think. When Mike and I were negotiating this 25% and 5% limit on expansion of existing facilities that had been used by unrelated individuals, we actually understood those as absolute limits. And I actually think that perhaps the Department of Law understood it that way too. And then Bill Lear reading it from a different perspective, you know, read it differently and said, well, those are limits based on the date at which you request a permit. And that's the first time I considered the possibility that it could be read that way. We've now talked, and this was, in fact, the critical selling point for the persons in the neighborhood with whom I have spoken, that we have this kind of absolute limit on expansion where there's already been some significant expansion. And it's my understanding that both Bill Lear and Dick Murphy concur that this can, in fact, be limited to as of a date certain with the date certain being January 1, 2010, and those percentages then become absolute limits on expansion short of someone going to the Board of Adjustments, which we do not intend to foreclose that possibility. So then it's your understanding that when an applicant goes to building inspection for an expansion is when this would kick in and they would have to look back at all the records. Yes. I'm looking at Dewey Crow, too. It kicks in, and it kicks in as of the square footage of the property, the developed property on January 1, 2010. Okay. Council Member Blues has a question. Thank you. This question of how it's perceived or understood, that can shift over time, I would guess, too. And my question is whether this language sets an absolute. We have, in fact, been talking about an amendment to the language to be put forth at some time in this process. Rochelle has been working. I was under the impression, as was Mr. Cowan, that we all understood that this was going to start with a base, whatever square footage you have on January 1, 2010, will be the basis for determining this percentage limitation. In light of this discussion, I think between now and when this language is polished, has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, has gone through hearings, and then comes back up to the Council for final adoption, we will certainly add language that clarifies that, because that is what everyone now agrees should be the effective date. I'm not so sure that, I mean, we can propose something now, but my thought is, based on these discussions, we can take care of that as it proceeds through, along with anything else that may come up in the course of the subsequent hearings. Thank you. So I guess that would be a kind of marker for us that if and when this comes back to us from the Planning Commission, we want to make sure that the light is set up. And we can even do something between now and when it comes to the Council. So we can work on it between now and Thursday night also and put some clarification in there, because it's not going to be complicated. We just want to make sure we put it at the right spot to get exactly the effect that we intend. Did you have a comment, Mr. Lear? Yeah, just a brief one. And I think the conversation has been good, because as a policy matter, we don't care. I mean, it's fine to make it an absolute. All I was doing was reflecting the way the language reads to me. and I agree with Rochelle that we'll take some care to do it, but I suspect if you just add, after the word 5%, if you just add the phrase of the property as it existed on January 1, 2010, I don't think it's going to take major surgery, but my primary reason to come back is so we're on the record as saying this is not an issue, at least from my perspective. I think Dick Murphy agrees with me. So if there was some agreement on that and the planning committee wanted to add that language today, it could. We'll have something to you by three. Would that be? Well, I think it would. What I'm hoping is that whatever comes out of planning committee today will come as a motion, a formal motion or motions. Let's try this. Let's go to item C. Item C. and this would be on the definition of single family dwelling and two-family dwelling and it currently reads the building shall not be enlarged or expanded colon are you with me single family with him and c item c do you see that yes okay let's add the following after expanded and before the colon beyond the existing square footage on January 1, 2010. Does that suit all the, first of all, the folks who've crafted this? Yeah. And can you repeat it one more time? It will now read, item C will now read, the building shall not be enlarged or expanded beyond the existing square footage on January 1, 2010. Okay. Okay. And we can get this reprinted for you with that language. Okay. All right. Very good. Yes. Madam Chair, I've got another comment. and I'd like to make, if I could, you'll notice at the end of my memo, we referenced some other issues that were actually kicked around a bit by this group. And what we were attempting to do was stay within the parameters that were. Could I ask you to put your microphone up? I'm sure we have thousands watching at home. Yes. We had some other issues that the group kicked around that we felt like probably needed to be addressed at some point. One of those is parking. I know that's been an issue that's been discussed by the Student Housing Task Force and members of the planning committee. What we were attempting to do in bringing this forward today was to stay within the parameters that we had discussed last Tuesday, that is text amendments. And so what the group has committed to do is to continue to meet and try to address some of these related issues, like parking, that we think probably need to address, be addressed, in hopes that we would be able to present some additional proposed ordinance changes to you. Now, just for a reminder, Article 16 zoning ordinance regarding rear yard parking in residential areas is in planning committee. Is that included in what you're hoping to address? I think parking generally. So that would include rear yard parking? Yes. So you would come back to, that would help us with the planning committee issue, and Paul maybe can help me. I don't recall offhand when that issue's coming back to planning, which month, but I'm happy that you all have decided that you all would like to work on it together. Well, that's subject to the committee's approval, but we think that that might help since we've got this group together to try to put together some language that everybody can agree to. Paul thinks maybe we had put it on for August tentatively. Did you say August? Maybe. We're both relying on memory, so we don't remember for sure. We may. I'm not sure. We haven't committed to a particular time to try to reconvene. We spent a lot of time last week, so we'll see what the group's preference is. But we'll try to get something to you as soon as we can. Okay. Now, we need to go back and see what sort of motions or further discussion may come out of this. And for people at home, if there is anyone watching with their coffee and donut or fruit, it's very interesting. I really appreciate all of you who've worked on this. It's been kind of like a beehive this morning with different folks moving around the room and having little powwows to make sure words are correct, et cetera. So thank you very much. Council members. And before we go to council members, let me just ask, I know Todd Johnson has been faithful to just about every planning committee meeting we've had. I'd welcome you to come make comment. Todd is, I'm going to get it wrong if I say it, but I think you're the vice president for government relations for the homebuilders. Did I get close? Close. I'm their executive vice president for the association, and thank you for recognizing me and thank you for all the work that you all have done. I came here today with a couple of issues. Within the homebuilders association election, we have a group that's very active in the remodeling industry, And we've been following this issue pretty closely because of some maybe unintended consequences that could fall out that would affect their business and what I think some people in this body have termed as legitimate remodeling going on in our community and things like that. One of the things that's been discussed here that there was a lot of confusion about is something that we were confused on, and that was some of the definitions and requirements around the single-family dwelling. and talking with Mr. Lear and Mr. Murphy yesterday and today. They've pretty much convinced me that there's no problem with the way this is written and moving forward, that the items A, B, and C do not apply to those single-family homes that are owner-occupied. So one of the fears of our remodelers was that they do a lot of business for their houses. The additions that they do, permits that they pull for residential additions, are oftentimes, sometimes 50 to 80 percent of their additions are larger than 25 percent of the existing structure, and they didn't want to have to be running down to the Board of Adjustments every time they wanted a permit. So fairly comfortable with where that is. Maybe, as indicated by some of the discussion, there might need to be a little bit more cleanup and clarification going forward just so there's no misinterpretations in the future. The majority of the questions that the remodelers came back to me with have to do more really with enforcement questions on moving forward once this is done. And, Madam Chair, if this is not an appropriate time to talk about these, we can wait or I can kind of give you a rundown of what our questions are now. I think if committee members would like to hear that, I think it's quite appropriate. One of the questions that we have is really once these definitions change, what changes in the enforcement side of things? what triggers enforcement, who is going to be enforcing them moving forward. We assume that building inspection will. I don't know if any of that discussion has gone on. It seems like as we're moving through this that that would be taken into consideration on what is going to change in enforcement. Is that the end of your list? No, it's not. Oh, okay. That was my first question. Okay, we're kind of making a note here. And Dewey Crow, director of our building inspection, is here. And I think it would be very appropriate when you're finished to have Dewey and maybe some of the, maybe Logan and some folks from the city, weigh in on their perception of how this will work. Right. Okay, the other thing is what is going to happen whenever a property owner or a contractor comes to the building inspection department to get a permit? once these changes are implemented. I assume that there's going to be have to be some questions or interpretation of what's going on with the additions. I haven't heard any discussion about that. So I guess basically what will change in the process of getting a permit for a residential addition. Another question that kind of along those same lines is with the percentage increase limitations that have been imposed for residential additions meeting the criteria that's been set forth for the structures that are for the five or more unrelated people, what kind of, I guess, what process will be in place to look at the square footage, what will be required of a contractor or property owner to present at the time of requesting a permit in order to make those evaluations. And that's pretty much the end of my questions on that. Okay, very good. Thank you very much. Let's see. Mr. Crowe, we'll start with you. Dewey Crow, Division of Building Inspection. Todd, I think I heard what will trigger the enforcement, what will happen at the permitting process that will be different. With the limits on the percentage of square footage, what will the process be to look at the square footage and how will that work in the permitting? Did I reflect that? Okay. Welcome. Well, as far as what will trigger enforcement, again, we operate currently under complaint basis for properties where it's alleged they're operating now as boarding houses or they're conducting activities that's not under the zoning ordinance, and we would do that going forward under the new proposed changes. Again, that would be complaint-driven, and when we go in and look at those instances where it's alleged that there are violations of any of the new changes, we would then start our investigation on that. Obviously, we're going to have to rely on getting information from landlords. If there's questions as to involving, say, whether they're wanting to expand, we'll probably ask for copies of leases and those type things to try to establish prior usage within the time frames on the proposed language. We will probably have to, ultimately, if we can't make a determination on any of the issues, we're going to kick it over to the Board of Adjustment to make those determinations. if it's something that we can't determine from field visits and from documentation provided to us by landlords. So it's going to be somewhat similar to how it's enforced now. We obviously will have much more clear guidelines of things we're looking for, numbers of individuals that we're looking at. But again, if we can't make a determination, we will refer it to the Board of Adjustment. Thank you. Council Member Beard asked questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dewey, I'm making an assumption you can reinforce it or not. Are we dealing with 25% gross or net square feet? In other words, are you measuring the exterior of the building and coming up with 25% or do you actually go into the buildings and – We're going gross square footage is what we apply. It's how much of that lot that building takes up. Okay. That's fine. That makes sense. Are there other questions from council members? So, Dewey, if you don't mind again to say how your permitting process will look different, Could you just? Well, I think obviously the first thing we're going to have to do under the proposed new changes is any time we issue permits for additions to single-family dwellings, one of our questions is going to be, is this rental property or is this owner occupied? occupied. And we will probably develop some forms that the members applying for the permits will basically fill out, asking those type questions that will mirror the information that we're going to have to have to know what we're dealing with. If we're dealing with an owner-occupied piece of property, and that's what it's indicated, that's how we will review those plans and make approvals for additions or remodeling work that's being done there. And we will assume, we will have to assume we're being given the correct information by whoever's applying for the permit. And you would then be also referring back in the permitting process to your records of past expansion. For existing properties, then we will reference what records we have on file for that as to what the property was originally, what it was. Our most up-to-date records indicate that it was being used for. We will incorporate all of that. And we have records for most all properties in Fayette County. Some of them are far more extensive than others, but we will reference those through our archive files and try to make a determination. Obviously, with new structures being built, it's much simpler. Council Member Lawless. Yes, this was just brought to my attention. And in the first, and this is for all the attorney folks, in the first revised, whatever, ZODA that we were looking at, They're under definition of family. Number three, D, not more than eight persons who are, and it talks about the Americans with disabilities and home-like residents defined in KRS 216B.450, and that is not in the new one. Yes, that has been retained in the new one. Those are exceptions that are created by law. We are required to recognize the statutory home-like provisions in the KRS and also in federal statutes. In fact, I received a phone call this week from someone with an association dealing with fair housing issues, And he was very satisfied that that language would cover everything that they have found through case law is entitled to exist in single-family residential areas without having an adverse impact. And it would still be eight? Yes, that's what has been recognized as being appropriate in single-family areas. Okay, so it is included. Yes. Thank you. It's still there. Are there other questions of Mr. Crow or about enforcement? I suspect that I'm sort of thinking out loud about enforcement, but this is also going to be a process where things occur as you're going forward. If these are passed on to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission comes back and the Council passes them, it will take some time to work the enforcement angles and craft what you intend to do. You are correct. This is lots of new language. If this is successfully incorporated into our current zoning requirements, we will probably have to develop methods of effective enforcement and probably have to change those as we come up with problems and run into issues that are unintended or unknown at this time. So it will be an evolving process as we move forward. Yes, Rochelle Boland. I think in the past few months, Dewey and Building Inspection has been working with the Department of Law. We have tightened up the applications for permits to make sure the person applying is an authorized agent of the homeowner. And I think that we can easily, working with Dewey, come up with a checklist document which will be completed by the applicant and signed by the applicant that will reflect the current status of the property upon application, which will probably greatly assist in having documentation of the status of that property going forward. So I think that's something we can do on an administrative basis. When you do that, I know that's an administrative function. When you do that, would you consider getting some input from the folks who have been involved, and including Mr. Johnson? I think that might be something that we can talk about in this same work group, and if this committee likes, they could look at any proposed forms that we would be considering adopting. As Dewey said, they start out by asking whether it's owner-occupied or rental. We can ask whether they intend to claim to be qualified for the exception of up to six, and then, you know, have a checklist as to whether they're doing a conversion or an expansion of one dwelling unit, because we have dealt with the issue of if it's R2 and they're lawfully entitled to expand from one unit to two. So I think we can come up with a document that will allow building inspection to determine that. And what I'm asking is. I have the definitions to make sure the property owner is fully informed of everything that applies to that property. Okay. And then what I'm asking is, since it is some significant changes, is that you at least have some input or feedback from Mr. Johnson, the home builders, and folks who are going to be neighborhoods, people who are going to be impacted every day. We will do that. Okay. And then I think Mr. Lear has something on his mind. I want to make a suggestion as this thing goes forward. This is, in some respects, as fundamental a change in the zoning ordinance as we have made in a long time. And the complicated nature of it, I told somebody a moment ago, this discussion could go as Exhibit A in explaining why we have talked about changing the definition of family at least as far back as the mid-'70s in the aftermath of the so-called communes. I was commissioner of law for part of that explanation, and we've never done it. I mean, the definition of family that's there today is the same one that is at least as old as the 1953 ordinance. I've gone back through all of them. So I think as we go forward, it would be very helpful for the Planning Commission to produce, for want of a better term, a record that is explanatory of some of these changes and not necessarily an official commentary, although frankly that's done in some legislative context. I'm not suggesting it here because that would be breaking new ground, But I really think it would be good to make a record that we can go back in one place and read what is intended by some of these things. If we don't do that, then to make it absolutely clear, we'd probably have to make these things ten times as long as they are, and I just don't think that's what you'd want in a zoning code. So that's my suggestion. Very good idea. Very good suggestion. Council Member Blues. Madam Chair, I'm not sure that this... Pardon me? That you want this at this particular time, but I think it would be helpful that having gone through the new set of definitions, one by one and line by line, if now we could have from the composers of this new version a kind of overview. And getting back to Council Member Lawless's point that this is about density, how will it affect our density issues going forward? What's going to change? What's going to remain the same? And I'd sort of like to hear that, put this in context. And whether you prefer to do that later or now, I'd like to have that summary, so to speak. Okay, from the folks who actually sat in the meetings. Correct. who gave up, voluntarily gave up about 35 hours of their time. Good suggestion. And if we might have Vice Mayor Gray's comment first, and then maybe we can do a... My question actually goes to Bill. Tuning in sometimes to the more long-term and strategic issues, because I think what you said at least resonates a lot with me. And there's that old aphorism about if we don't listen to history, we're doomed to repeat it. You said that a commentary, you would not break new ground with a commentary model. However, one of the things that I've seen that is so disturbing is there is no context for history often. And so we end up reinventing and going through the same problems over and over and over and over. At least we hear about it if we're here for a while, that we've gone through it over and over and over. So why would that not be an imperative of this exercise, an outcome? I wouldn't argue against it. I mean, I do, I think just the little exercise that Ted Cowan and I went through this morning where I read the language as I think it would be read if somebody picked it up five years from now and Ted was reading it differently is a good point. There are other pieces of this that are probably subject to the same different readings. And some explanatory language wouldn't hurt. You've heard me say my favorite Harry Truman quote is, the only thing new in the world is a history you don't know. And I think what we're trying to do is, and if I could encapsulate what I think this is about in one or two sentences, This is aimed at both protecting legitimate property rights of existing property owners, but stopping the conversions. And in doing that, it will have impact on density going forward, but it does recognize that under Kentucky law there are constitutional rights to continue preexisting uses even once the zoning ordinance has been changed. And what we've tried to do is not only protect those, but frankly limit the number of fights that you have to have about whether something was legitimate, not legitimate, how many numbers there were, and so on and so forth. So I think it's a balance. I think it will have an impact particularly on areas that are in harm's way right now for conversions away from what we typically think of as single-family use. Thank you very much. Maybe this, Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Chair. I would just like to say also that I think the additional commentary would be extremely helpful to the staff as they try to enforce the rules and things that we put down on paper. They are not privy to a lot of these discussions that we're going through and only have the document in front of them to read. And so their interpretation is based on what's before them. And I think the commentary would be extremely helpful to them as well. So I think that's a great idea. Thank you. If I can respond, I was just kind of talking to Chris King, who was, of course, involved in all of these discussions and understands the intent of the negotiations. And he and his staff, of course, will be preparing the staff report to the Planning Commission when they review these zoning ordinances. So I think we could address the issue of having, in essence, a set of commentaries setting forth intent on the effect and how we anticipate these will be enforced, while at the same time not actually creating something new. I think we can manage to do both with the thought in mind that that's what you've asked us for and it would be extremely useful and we can all work together on that staff report. Excellent. Council Member Stennett. I was just going to follow up and say maybe we need to do articles of intent or made some bullet points about what our intentions as a committee are as it relates to most of these changes before maybe we adopt it as a committee before it goes forward as well, that we can include as an appendix or something. We will be looking at some whereas provisions that will go in the resolution that initiates these tax amendments, and they will at least, in somewhat of a broad sense, without getting into having five pages of them, the intent and the purpose and the problems that we intend to address with these. So we will definitely be working on those between, at least between now and Thursday. Okay. Then also I was going to follow up on Mr. Lear's comments about what this really does, and Councilman Blue has put it in context. I want to remind my committee members, you know, what we talk about while we're here is because of the symptoms we're trying to correct the problem. This only corrects it going forward. This doesn't deal with any issues that are existent, and we've got to keep up the work. We've got to keep up with the Building Inspection Task Force and the other changes, the solid waste ordinances that we will be getting this week that will look at change. And we've got to keep up the code enforcement. I mean, we've still got to keep the press on. So let's not relax and get through this day. We've got plenty of issues to still deal with. This just addresses the future. So I just want to make sure everyone watching, everyone here understands that. This addresses the future, not the present issues. To put an exclamation point on that, though, I go back to what Bill Lear said, that this really is been a long time coming. So if we can have something that results out of this, I think the work that you all have done has been very good. What I'd ask right now is if other members of the working group want to comment on Councilmember Blues' question about the impact on density. Ted, basically you were coming from a neighborhood perspective. That's correct. I don't know that I could add a lot to what Bill said. I think we see this not so much as was just mentioned, correcting perhaps abuses of the past. It doesn't do that. And it won't entirely stop conversions, but it will limit conversions. It will make them more reasonable, and that's what we were looking for. Going back for a moment, I think I want to make clear at least the perspective that I and I believe many in the neighborhood have Now, to use the example of the fraternity house that we talked about earlier, where we might have four, five, six young men or sorority house young women occupying a home in the neighborhood, we honestly don't have a problem with that. That's not maybe five or six we'd prefer not to have, but the fact that it's a group of young people who have some fraternity or sorority affiliation living there, That's not our issue. We're concerned about ever-increasing density and the behaviors and other problems that tend to accompany that ever-increasing density. And we do believe, and I'm speaking perhaps for a very small group, I have managed to speak with most of the more vocal members of the neighborhood, including my wife and a few others. And I have their authority to say that those with whom I have spoken, while they all have reservations, while they would all like to see something even more tough or constrictive than what is now being proposed, while they would like to see that, they see this as a reasonable compromise, as a reasonable way to go forward at this point. It won't solve all of our problems, but it may at least slow down the encroachment or encroachment into the neighborhood with high-density living. And we appreciate your listening to us today. Thank you. Thank you. Richard Murphy. Oops, sorry about that. So this was, I thought, a very good procedure to go through. I think having the attorneys from differing sides in the same room, and we knew we, you know, we told you we might not come up with something, but we all knew in there we really better come up with something to bring back to you on that. And people I was representing, Greater Lexington Apartment Association Association and the University Area Housing Association did feel like they gave up a lot and probably weren't totally happy with it. But what we wanted to get out of it was two things. One was certainty, and second was permanence. And we know that this gives a lot of certainty to the rules, so we know what the rules are going forward. And on permanence, obviously we can't guarantee anything will be permanent, but our goal was that four years from now we're not back in front of you all fighting out these issues again. You know, my folks want to get on with their lives as well as everybody else does. As far as current issues, Mr. Stinnett, I want to address one thing you said. I think it will have some impact on the current situation because I've talked to a lot of members of our group who some of them may have had more than six people living in a unit right now, a lot of them said, well, we'll get this certainty. I'll reduce down to six, so I have this certainty going forward. So I may have an impact on the current situation as well. And I think if, Madam Chairman, Craig Hardin, I think, would like to take a minute to address you two, if that's okay. Okay. Thank you. And then also we'd also like to hear Chris King if you have any comments about the density issue. All right. Craig Harden. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Craig Harden. I think what I'd like to do is say, first of all, is be clear that, because I've had some questions from individual council members and so forth, that we are supporting this document with the exception of things that were brought up today. I think we're very good. We're agreeable to everything in here. If this goes together as a package, if it gets split, then I think both sides have problems in a lot of areas. So I think it's very good. I also want to compliment the people that went to bat for this. And incidentally, the volunteers, we just wanted to publicly thank Richard Murphy for volunteering all his time for us. Oh, I did say that, didn't I? He may be the only quasi-volunteer. Thank you, Dick. We appreciate that. I wanted to get that on record as much as I could. So this does need to stick as a package. I also want to comment that I think a lot of the most reasonable people from all groups were involved here, and I think you all understand what I mean, on both sides. There are extremes that tend to get our community into trouble. And in years past, I like the comments about the history and so forth from Bill. In years past, we seem to, you know, sometimes we legislate on the real vocal minority and so forth. So I think this is good. This has come together pretty well. Having said that, there are a number of things that our people feel like they're giving up. And I'd like to remind the council that there are other things going forward right now. currently. Please remember the Student Housing Task Force. Eight expanded enforcement options that were going forward. So there's eight items right there that are changing behavior mostly, because that's another, this is zoning, but that's behavior. Those things are going forward. There are also additional policy items that are going forward. Remember Keith Gaines' program, and also So a big one is that the university has agreed now and is opening that off-campus student housing office. That's big for our community and will change not only tenant behavior, but it will change landlord-property owner behavior as they grow through the process and want to be marketable out into the communities to parents and so forth. So that's a big, big thing. There are a couple of items that I really want to emphasize that need to happen, and the number one thing is that this needs, the idea that Richard mentioned is of permanence. I saw, Ms. Lawless, I saw you, we were nodding at each other. We're tired of this. We just went through some issues when the Student Housing Task Force came back in October. This continues to be, to our members, as we go through these things, an assault on property rights and things. These are additional restrictions for us. There's not much extra in this. We've got some locks removed from doors. But other than that, please understand, these are additional restrictions. If we come back in two years from now and say, well, we want to restrict this more, we want to give up more of these property rights, we want to drop these, this is an effective down zoning. Again, we're supporting this. We agree with it. We found ourselves in an odd arrangement in that this was – we wanted to switch onto the other side of the fence and say this is the right thing to do for our community. So we got some reasonable people together. They agreed, but we really need to get some permanence to this, and the other item was parking. We really need to look at that parking thing because that's part of this. So thank you. Thank you very much for your comments. Chris King, do you have any comments about Dr. Blue's request to hear about impact on density from your perspective? Just a couple things real quick. having spent a lot of time locked in a room with at least seven attorneys last week. They were really great. They really were. I want to just compliment all of them and the attitudes they brought into the room. I think your statement about density is correct, and I think that's very critical to remember, that for all the improvements that are being made here and are being proposed, there are still going to be additions. There are still going to be vinyl additions. There are going to be some things that people don't like, and I think everybody in the room understood and knew that. But critically and more importantly, with the definitions that are proposed in terms of the restrictions of the use of those additions and those structures, the kinds of very worst incursions I think will basically just not be sustainable and will not happen. and some of the density issues that go along with that will not be seen expanding, particularly into single-family residential areas. I think that was the goal of everybody that was in the room. So that's really all I have to say other than I could not agree more, and I brought this up while the group was meeting, that having interpretive guidelines to help document what the intent of this legislation is, because when you work at it at the operative level, as Dewey and other staff will tell you, interpreting the legislation and the kinds of decisions that are brought to you, we could sit here for hours and days and write, well, what if, what if, what if, what if, and we still on about within the first week there will be somebody come in with something that wasn't specifically thought about. So I could not agree more that having a documentation of the history of what was trying to be done and even suggesting some administrative guidelines for interpretation of these is very critical and very important, and we look forward to doing that. Thank you. That's a big commitment, and we all appreciate that very much. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for you or a comment, and maybe you can help me with it. The question about parking, do we anticipate the issue of parking being laid to rest and brought forward at the same time, or are we talking about deferring it and having it on its own separate track? It's my understanding nothing's ready on parking. So I would not, this is my personal opinion, I would not favor slowing this down to wait for parking. Oh, I wouldn't either. I was questioning maybe we need to speed it up. Well, did you want to speak to that, Commissioner? I was just talking with Mr. Hardin, and I think what we would like to do is try to get the group back together to come back and make a proposal about parking, because it is a naughty problem. And it's one that, depending upon when we might get the work done, we will probably have it for you well before your meeting in August. But if that's the case, Madam Chair, I assume you could call a meeting and we'll work it in and figure out how to deal with it. Because it is an issue that's pretty important. It's one you all hear a lot about. And it'd be nice to deal with that issue. Okay. I guess my thoughts were that it could either impact what we're doing here today or contradict in some cases. Just because each individual in all probability has an automobile. Right. And there isn't enough front footage, at least in what we call the traditional college area, to park on the curb. so it defaults to the backyard. Yeah, we're talking about on-site off-street parking and looking at the current regulations that deal with that. But I don't think anything that you're doing here today with respect to these tax amendments would contradict what we would be doing with respect to parking. It would need to complement them. Unless it impacts the numbers. I still have the ability for someone, let's say they can house five people, but they can only park four. I don't know that that isn't an issue that we have presently. Say, I think you've got parking regulations that are in place, and then we have the current definitions that we're operating under. So if anything, based on the changes that are being proposed here, and again to emphasize what Mr. Hardin just said, if we're reducing the number of folks down to six, you're actually potentially reducing the parking problem just by the implementation of these new restrictions. and going forward you certainly would because you're going to have a definite numbers limit in an R1 or R2. But I think we just will do the best we can, but I think we can come up with something that hopefully everybody can agree with because it's a big issue for the neighborhood and it's a big issue for the landlords. Thank you. We will look forward to the Forever Friends group bringing back your recommendations. Vice Mayor Gray. With a ditto of thanks to all those who have worked hard on this for a long time. With permission of the Chair, I'll make a motion to move all of these recommendations as amended forward to the next work session of the Council. Second. Okay. We have a motion by Vice Mayor Gray and a second by Council Member Lawless to move forward to the full Council at today's work session, initiating these text amendments to go to the Planning Commission. Now, what does that do to what's already on the docket? No, for first reading. There are things on the docket for first reading, some of which have been changed. We will need to. So they'll have to come off. I'll defer to the parliamentarian, but I believe we'll need to amend that Thursday night. But we can, you could report out today what you have. And with respect to items 345, you can put those on the docket. So then your thinking is that, for example, the sorority and fraternity house that's already been moved on to the docket would need to come off and be reflective of a new... We would need to amend that Thursday evening because it's already on the docket. Yes, I understand that, but then it would need to be amended to reflect today. Correct. And we'll have the appropriate motions ready, Madam Chair, for you for Thursday on that. Okay. We have several Councilmembers. Councilmember Feigl, discussion of the motion? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to compliment this group of people that have come together to try to deal with a situation that has been divisive for this community for decades. And I think what has occurred here is monumental. is monumental. And I think we all look forward to all the positive changes that will come from this to create a better quality of life for our community. And I'd like to thank the mayor actually for taking the lead on helping to identify this great group of folks, community leaders that have come together. And I'm just very encouraged that we were able to find common ground rather than continuing to battle over this for years and actually have to see it go to court. I think all the anguish and the bad feelings and all the things that would have come from continued battling and litigation have kind of been eliminated now. And I hope that we can go forward in a very positive way and work together to help protect our neighborhoods. And one of the things that I brought forward in addition to this is for the planning committee to take a good look at the ND1 overlay, which I think is an additional tool to help us protect our neighborhoods. So, again, I thank you very much for your efforts in working together in being willing to make compromise and give up a little bit on behalf of a good document. So I really, again, I can't tell you how grateful I am. Thank you very much. Is there any other comment or question from Council Members on the motion? Okay, we're having a pause. A sidebar for the parliamentarian. Madam Chair. Yes. In speaking with the parliamentarian, I wanted to make sure that we could do this. I think what the vice mayor's motion is, is the appropriate motion. And all of these items would go forward as a package. Today to the work session. To the work session. and then Thursday night what has previously been advanced to the docket, we would just remove at that time. And I think that would be a little simpler to do it that way. And that way we've got the whole package. And as Mr. Harden indicated, these are pieces that fit together. I mean, that was the idea that it would go as a package. So that may be simpler. And that way you have the motion to put all this on Thursday night, and then Thursday night what's already been advanced we simply remove. Okay. And so will law help us with that on Thursday night, the things that need to come off? Right. And assuming that this goes through the council today, and then between now and 3 o'clock, you will have the appropriate motion for my planning committee report out. Correct. Plus, we will go ahead and make the amendment that was made on that existing square footage. Yes. Yes. On January 1, 2020. Okay. I would like to ask my vice chair, Council Member Blues, if he would take the chair for just a few seconds. Yes, I certainly accept this awesome responsibility. He's been ever faithful. Lo these many years. I appreciate it. And then if you wouldn't mind to. Council Member Gorton. Thank you. Recognize me. I wanted to make my own personal statement on this motion. Because I was here in what year would that have been? I'm looking at Chris, was it 2002 when the student government president came dressed in camouflage with war paint with about 100 students protesting what was proposed as a definition of family? And I think that through the work of many fine people on all sides of this discussion, we have come to a really good place for our community. And everybody's having to give up a little bit and not get quite what they wanted or would have liked in the perfect world, but it's not a perfect world. And so I see this as a huge statement of how we can work together with each other, even when we have differing viewpoints. And I'm quite thrilled with this because it's been a long time coming. And when I vote yes, I will be voting with lots of inward enthusiasm and joy, shouting, and I'm hopeful that the whole council will pass this forward. So thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. And with that, I will ask for the vote if there are no other questions or comments. Will all those in favor please say aye. Aye. And are there any opposed? All right. For those of you who have worked really hard on this, you may be back at 3 o'clock to hear the recommendation forward to the whole council. I thank you very much. And I have a motion from Council Member Ellinger to adjourn, and Council Member Feigl seconds. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? We are adjourned. Say yeah, yeah, yeah Say yeah, yeah, yeah Say yeah, yeah, yeah Say yeah, yeah, yeah It's gonna be a friend of mine Very loud today If I don't get some shit We have three reasons, really, to be concerned, because we have three seismic zones that are somewhat active in the center of the United States. The big one, of course, is the new Madrid seismic zone, and you can see the faults outlined by the earthquakes, the yellow dots here, since 1974. That certainly is the largest threat because back in 1811, 1812, between December 26th and February 6th, we had a series of three, probably four earthquakes around 8.0 in magnitude. The other zones, we have the Wabash Valley seismic zone. And we've had some examples of those in recent history. In 2002, we had a 5.2 earthquake near Evansville, Indiana. And more recently, in April of 2008, we had a 5.2 up near Mount Carmel, Illinois. And we think that zone is capable of generating earthquakes up to, say, 7.2 magnitude. Then we have kind of a surprise seismic zone down here. About 35 miles northeast of Lexington is the town of Sharpsburg. and if you had asked me what are the chances for an earthquake in Sharpsburg in 1979, I'd have said slim and none. In 1980, we had a jolt of about 5.2, and then a few years later in the same vicinity, we had a 4.9, both of which were felt here in Lexington. And we now know that there are some deep faults under that region, that we were not aware of, and that they are capable of generating, say, something up to at least 6.0. So we have to worry about all of those areas, but, of course, they're some distance away from Lexington, so it's not like the fault is right under it. And the things that we have to look at are what we call the hazard and the risk. And the hazard is more physical. It's the fault displacement, it's the amplitude of the shaking, the enhancement of the attitude, of the amplitude of the shaking, liquefaction, where the sediments essentially turn to a liquid, and landslides. And a lot of that depends on a few major factors, such as the magnitude of the earthquake itself, how far you are from the epicenter, which is the point right above the earthquake on the surface of the Earth, and, of course, the geologic conditions. And a good example is the Sharpsburg earthquake, because that was a 5.2, but if you were around then, you may recall that most of the damage was in Maysville up on the Ohio River because it is on loose sediments which are capable of a lot of shaking and displacement. Well, as you just heard from Dr. Kiefer, the Lexington Fayette County area can experience earthquakes, so it's important to know what to do when one happens. Most earthquakes strike with no warning at all, so it's important that you know what to do if you're inside, outside, or outside in a vehicle. If you're inside, the best place to be is under a sturdy desk or another piece of sturdy furniture or up against a wall, an interior wall that's away from bookshelves or pictures or anything that might fall on you. The method that we use to teach people to be prepared for earthquakes is the drop, cover and hold method and that means as soon as you feel the shaking start you drop wherever you are, take cover under that sturdy piece of furniture or up against a wall and hold on until the shaking stops. If you're outside what you want to do is stay outside and then get to an area that's away from power lines, telephone poles, buildings, bridges, or overpasses, anything that might fall or topple over onto you and stay there until the shaking stops. If you're outside in a car, what you want to do is stay there. You're safer in your car than you would be outside. And again, you want to stay away from trees, bridges, overpasses, telephone lines, anything that might fall and injure you. So now that we've talked about what to do when an earthquake actually happens, I want to give you some steps that you can take to prepare yourselves and your family before an earthquake actually happens. The first thing that you want to do is to have an emergency plan and an emergency kit. And the emergency plan and the emergency kit will help you be prepared for any emergency, not just an earthquake. You can find more information about emergency plans and kits on our website. The second thing that you want to do is practice your plan. You want to make sure that you and your family know what you would do when an earthquake happens, and you want to practice that over and over. It's important to remember that all earthquakes happen with no fire warning whatsoever, so you need to practice your plan to make sure that when it does happen, you and your family know exactly where to go and what steps to take to protect yourselves. There are some other steps that you can take to be prepared as well. You can install flexible piping to any gas or water appliances you have. That way when the earthquake happens, those appliances will move with the shaking of the earth and prevent them from breaking off and possibly causing a gas leak or a water leak in your home. You can also avoid hanging large pictures or putting sturdy bookshelves near your bed so when you're sleeping and the earthquake happens you won't have those things that can possibly fall on you and harm you. You could also put a sturdy pair of shoes by your bed and keep a flashlight there also and again that's a good idea to have in case when anything happens, not just an earthquake. You can also bolt bookshelves or other pieces of large furniture up against the wall so when the shaking happens you're not in danger of those falling over and harming you or your family. Thank you. Hi, I'm Jennifer Ebert from the American Heart Association. Now that the weather is starting to warm up, it's a great time to get more physically active. On April 7th, take a stand against heart disease by participating in National Start Walking Day. Join the American Heart Association along with UK Healthcare and Urban Active in Triangle Park from 10 to 2 to celebrate and take a walk. On April 24th, bring your family and coworkers to the Central Kentucky Start Heart Walk. It's a fun event and a great way to help support the life-saving mission of the American Heart Association. The Heart Walk is the largest fundraiser of the year for the American Heart Association in Central Kentucky and donations raised at the event help fund local education, advocacy and research, including over $17 million in cardiovascular research happening right here in Central Kentucky over the past 10 years. To get involved or get more information, please contact the American Heart Association at 278-1632 or visit our Facebook page at Central Kentucky Start Heart Walk. Thank you and I hope to see you at the Heart Walk. Did you know that downtown Lexington hosts well over 50 events, parades, walks, and races? To name a few, Mayfest, Fourth of July Festival, Roots and Heritage Festival, Christmas Parade, St. Patrick's Day Parade, the Thriller Event, a Halloween favorite, Museum Go Round, Thursday Night Live, Swinging on Main, Bike, Lexington, Midsummer Night's Run, Race for the Cure, and Martin Luther King Day March. Check it out. Downtown is alive with activity. You know, there's so much to do downtown. There's wonderful restaurants and great shopping. But there's no place to park. Wrong. You can park here. You can park here. You can park here. Come on downtown. There's plenty of ways to park. I guess we were wrong. Thanks to Lexport, there's plenty of parking. Hi, I'm David O'Neill, your Property Valuation Administrator, with an important message for homeowners. If you will be 65 years old or older this year, or if you're disabled, you probably qualify for the homestead exemption, reducing the taxable value of your property by $33,700. For more information and an application, please visit our website, FayettePVA.com. I'm David O'Neill, your Property Valuation Administrator. Did you know that downtown Lexington hosts well over 50 events, parades, walks, and races? To name a few, Mayfest, Fourth of July Festival, Roots and Heritage Festival, Christmas Parade, St. Patrick's Day Parade, The Thriller Event, a Halloween favorite, Museum Go Round, Thursday Night Live, Swinging on Main, Bike Lexington, Midsummer Night's Run, Race for the Cure, and Martin Luther King Day March. Check it out. Downtown is alive with activity. Hi, I'm Jennifer Ebert from the American Heart Association. Now that the weather is starting to warm up, it's a great time to get more physically active. On April 7th, take a stand against heart disease by participating in National Start Walking Day. Join the American Heart Association along with UK Healthcare and Urban Active in Triangle Park from 10 to 2 to celebrate and take a walk. On April 24th, bring your family and coworkers to the Central Kentucky Start Heart Walk. It's a fun event and a great way to help support the life-saving mission of the American Heart Association. The Heart Walk is the largest fundraiser of the year for the American Heart Association in Central Kentucky, and donations raised at the event help fund local education, advocacy, and research, including over $17 million in cardiovascular research happening right here in Central Kentucky over the past 10 years. To get involved or get more information, please contact the American Heart Association at 278-1632 or visit our Facebook page at Central Kentucky CERT Heart Walk. Thank you, and I hope to see you at the Heart Walk. The Storm Sue our storm sewers, clean up our water, and teach us how to keep this precious resource safe. You already know that the Urban County Government has a great menu of services for recycling management in your home or business. But did you know that they also offer convenient locations and hours for recycling drop-off? The following locations are open for drop-off of your recyclables at your convenience. The same rules for homes and businesses apply, but glass can only be dropped off at locations with the bin marked glass only. I wish grown-ups would just get more serious about recycling. Cans go in the blue rosie, not the herbie. Teach an adult you know how to recycle. It's good for the earth. Lexington's going green and kids are leaving the way. This public service message is brought to you by the Division of Environmental Quality and GTV3. May I have your attention, please, with the owner of the spare tire, slightly hairy, with a little brown mold to the left of the belly button. It's an innie. Please report to the press box and retrieve your appendage. Oh, they must have lost this parking further away from the stadium and walking in. Okay, we're back to the action. Brought to you by LFUCG and the Ed Council. I'm Mayor Jim Newberry, and I'm here to remind you that we can't move forward until you mail it back. I'm talking about your census form, of course. The 2010 Census will help our community qualify for federal funds that support our hospitals, job training centers, roads, senior centers, schools, and more. The higher our account, the easier it is to qualify for funding. The 2010 Census form only takes a few minutes to complete, so please fill it out and mail it back so Lexington can move forward. Plant a tree for your tomorrow It's your tree that clears the air Keep a great thing growing, America. Tree City, USA. The Arbor Day Foundation invites you to put down roots and plant trees in your community. In your hands, you have the power to change the world, improve the environment, help your community, and build a better tomorrow. As much as we need trees, we need to plan, plant, and care for them. Support Tree City USA where you live. Go to ArborDay.org to learn which trees to plant where and how to care for them. At ArborDay.org, you can find out how to contact your state forester for community forestry assistance. Let it be today for all the world to share. Go to ArborDay.org. We're Lex Call 311, your one call for City Hall. If you see a pothole that needs to be repaired, call 311. Be sure to give us as much information as possible, such as street names and the corners of intersections that may be involved, and give us addresses when at all possible. We're Lex Call 311, And we're here to take your call Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. until 8 p.m., or online at LexCall311. Your one call for City Hall. Hi, I'm David O'Neill, your Property Valuation Administrator. Did you know that any property owner has the right to challenge the value of their property as assessed by the PVA's office? This must be done during the annual open inspection period, which this year runs May 3 through 17, including Saturdays. For more information, give us a call at 246-2722 to make an appointment, or visit our website at fayettepva.com. I'm David O'Neill, your PVA. The American government is a public health. The budget is a very big impact on the budget. We have a very large impact on the 3月 of June. We have a simple survey survey from the U.S. We have a simple survey survey. We have a free survey survey. We have a free survey survey. Please note that the number of people are required to be required. Please note that the number of people are required to be required. Please note that the information is required to be required to be required. Please note that the number of people are required to be required. We will be able to make the next 10 years of the American government and the American government's budget. Please, please, please. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh soul to you girl now do you have to live baby do you have to live baby gave you the love you never knew girl oh do you have to live baby do you have to live baby I've cried so many times and that's for my heart It seems to make you laugh each time I cry Didn't I know you're mine this time? Didn't I? Didn't I know you're mine this time? Didn't I? This time I thought that heart of yours was true, girl Now tell me how you think it, baby Tell me how you think it, baby But this time I'm leaving you, girl Oh, you know it, baby Oh, you know it, baby Two thousand more, yes, I won't let go Get this into your head and be no more Tinga, don't even understand Can I Don't mind you're my last time Can I This time Don't mind you're my last time Don't mind you're my last time Do you have to wait, baby? Do you have to wait, baby? Ten times more, yes, I won't let them go Get this into your head, there'll be no more Do you know what you might understand? Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, baby. This is what we've got in your mind. Tell me, girl. Did I know you might? Did I know you might understand? Did I? Did I know you might understand? Did I? Did I know you might understand? Oh, my darling. And only you, my darling, all can suffer to sleep. And all, all I need is just to hear you say, you forgive me, forgive me. All, all I need is an every time tonight, so you understand. A moment of weakness, darling, caused me to scream You're trusting me, dear, I threw away When I look, look into your eyes I can see the hurt, baby, that you feel inside Although I've hurt you lately, you never once complain It makes me feel, sweet darling That's not so ashamed Tears are still, tears are still Running down my face Tears are only waiting On you can erase the love All I need Is just to hear you say You'll forgive me, forgive me, baby All I need The heavy times of my head Say you'll understand me Oh, beautiful I know I made a big mistake When all your love, darling Yes, I do, oh, say It's all my mind In my heart I'm scared to feel it Tearing me apart But every step I make Every step I take I make it up to you I make it up to you I do the wrong I've done I do the wrong I've done I've been a place for my nose But I make it up to you, baby Oh, all I need Just to hear you say You'll forgive me for you And baby All I need To have you touch my hands Say you'll hold me Baby All I need Just to hear you say You'll forgive me for you Well, I think I'm going Out of my head Yes I think I'm going out of my head Over you Over you I want you To want me I need you so badly I can't think of anything But you And I think I'm going out of my head Cause I can't explain the tears that I shed Over you Over you I see you each morning But you just walk past me You don't even know that I exist Going out of my head Over you Out of my head Over you Out of my head Day and night Night and day and night All the way My muffins away Into your heart There's no reason why My being shy Should keep us apart And I think I'm going out of my head Yes, I think I'm going out of my head Oh, out of my head Only you Out of my head Only you