Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is the March 1st Planning and Zoning Committee meeting, and all members of our committee are here. We have a couple of extra council members who have joined us, and we always appreciate that. We have really a couple of items on our agenda as well as our committee list. The first item on the agenda is the Building Inspection Task Force Report, findings and recommendations, and this takes up truly the very first 64 pages of our packet. And we're honored to have Councilmember Stinnett, who chaired that committee, here today to give us that report, and we will take appropriate action as we move forward. Councilmember, thank you for being here. Chair, thank you, and I appreciate the opportunity to finally present this to the committee. This started back in October of 2009. Let me give some background information before we go through it. But this is as a result or part of a result of the issues we were having with student housing at the time. Building inspection functions and what they were able to do and not do at the time were a great deal of concern for the council. So we created a task force to take a look at building inspection and their functions. As you can see on page one, myself, Council Member Peggy Henson, Council Member Tom Blues, current Vice Mayor Linda Gordon, and Council Member Diane Lawless were all members of the task force. We had several administrative attendees that attended all of our meetings. The history is there. Our primary goals that we addressed were several, and I apologize for the length of the packet, but we did cover a lot of information. We had some great research done by Paul Schoeniger, so thank you, Paul, for everything you did while the year of meetings took place. But our primary goals were to look at the management and personnel of the Division of Building Inspection. Number two, placement of zoning law within LFUCG. Where does it belong? Does it need to stay in building inspection or does it belong in another department? That's the enforcement of zoning law. Safety issues, we looked at that and how do we deal with those issues. Criminal versus civil enforcement of zoning laws. Currently we enforce our zoning laws through a criminal summons process that goes through district court. Obviously, a civil process would be handled internally and be a lot more expedient in solving some of our zoning issues. And then last, time limits on construction. We have several properties located in our city that we've had issues with the construction of, and given the economy, several unfinished properties that may or may not have needed to be sped up in construction that residents have to continue to look at on a daily basis. A couple other things we did discuss that were put into the task force or came up during our meetings on page two. At the top, gravel permits. That was an issue that was placed into the task force by the council. Temporary restructures. This is another issue that we discussed in 2008 that didn't get any traction with council, but it came up again. And then the software and application tracking for government for the division of building inspection. So we looked at those eight items in conjunction with studying many aspects of the functions of building inspection in that department. And I want to thank my colleagues on the task force for a couple of reasons. One, we did a really good job of keeping separate a legislative function and what we are here to do as a council and what we can do to change the way we operate in that division versus the administrative side. What would we like for them to do? We don't want to – I know at times we do get into the details as a council and try to do hands-on, But we did a really good job of separating those two and leave the executive branch to make some decisions that we recommend, and the council make the other decisions that we can affect from a legislature or legislative basis. So I thank my colleagues for doing that and separating those two roles out. Starting off, main function of building inspection, just for those of you who don't know and simply put, Their first job is to perform plan review, inspection, and issue permits in compliance with the 2007 Kentucky Building Code and Residential Code. That's their first function. The second function, as I alluded to earlier, is to interpret and enforce the local zoning ordinances in some sections of the Code of Ordinances. And you can see also on page two I listed several types of permits that are actually issued by the building inspection. So moving on to page three, and I'm going to try not to move through these too quickly. Some require more action. Some require a motion. So the motion could either be talking with the chair to keep it into committee. Obviously, no motion has to be made or make a motion to move it on to the full committee. I can't make any motions because I'm not a member of the planning committee, so I'll have to leave it to the committee's discretion to make a motion and let them decide whether or not to move it out. to the full counselor to keep it in the committee. First recommendation, going to the Management and Personnel Division on page three. There was a big administrative change, and our director, Dewey Crowe, was here to discuss any details that you need on any of these recommendations, as well as David Barbary from the Law Department and Rochelle as well from the Law Department. So if we have any questions along the way, we can stop and answer those. But, again, there was an administrative change made by the previous administration in October of 2009 to strictly adhere to the building code. There were no gray areas given. Going forward, every single code, whether it be a residential violation or commercial violation, was given the same penalty, a $500 fine if you didn't obtain a permit, et cetera. So there were some changes administratively during that time frame. Also, all building inspectors are cross-trained to do enforcement and building inspection currently. So that's another tidbit that we wanted to put in there. And then last but not least, the staffing levels have remained the same the last couple years since the task force has done their work, and I did attach on Appendix 1 on page 8 the hierarchy of building inspection for your review, as well as an attachment for appeals. Should someone disagree with a decision made or a citation from building inspection, that is the current appeals process on how you would appeal their decision, and that's basically done by state statute currently. So under number one, there are no necessarily recommendations. That's just more for information only. Again, that's an administrative function of government, the management of building inspection, and we left that to the administration to manage. There are no concrete recommendations made on that issue. Do we need to say anything else? Did I leave anything else? Any member of the task force on number one? Good afternoon. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. You adequately covered it, Council Member. Well, thank you. You didn't have to come over and say that. Okay, moving on to number two unless there's any questions. This is one we spent a lot of time on. We discussed where does zoning law enforcement really belong within LFUCG. Obviously, under bullet number one, and I apologize for the word administers, it should be interprets basically and enforces zoning laws. The planning department administers technically the zoning ordinance through the development process or any text amendments, et cetera. So that is a separate function. But current building inspectors do interpret and enforce the zoning laws for the city of Lexington. Now, several cities do have it in one office, and I did note, again, on Appendix 2, all those cities. And, for example, Louisville, they do it under the Office of Planning and Design, and they do have a specific employee that helps developers or residents shepherd those projects through their system. So that's food for thought. So we did our first recommendation is to request the administration to look for a long-term solution and a plan to separate zoning and building codes into separate departments. So that is the first recommendation from the task force. Again, that's zoning enforcement. Well, I didn't see anything to go along with that recommendation in the appendix. Well, we cited several cities that do it. that way in there and some of our thought processes on that. But we decided it's best left to the administration to make that final decision on, one, where it belongs and what that looks like from a budgetary standpoint, because obviously those employees are housed in the building inspection division currently. So there would have to be a decision made of what employees would be moved. Since they're all cross-trained, what do you do with that issue as well and which one stay and which one would be moved? And that definitely is more of an administrative recommendation back to us once they examine it and take a look at it. And I believe they will take a look at that for us on our behalf without any motions. Thank you. Number three. Safety issues. This was brought to us by Council Member Blues. This also came up during the student housing issues back in 2009 that we looked at. Currently, the Division of Fire has the ability to enter a residence or a commercial property to inspect for safety violations. But we're looking for a way for building inspection to have the same access. Right now, if they knocked on someone's door, and correct me if I'm wrong, Dewey, they couldn't enter the property. If someone said no, then they've got to turn around and walk away. This tool on page 16 under Appendix 3 would give the building inspection an administrative search warrant, which they would go to court, present their case, and the judge would issue a search warrant to be able to go back and do those type of safety inspections or zoning violation inspections if someone was using a residence for a business, et cetera. Do you want to add some to that? Council Member Stenet is correct. We currently do not have the authority to go into residence unless a building permit has been issued for that location. Building permit by nature under state law grants us entry right for whatever the purpose that building permit has been issued for, whether that's a construction of an addition or remodeling. We then have right under state law to go into that residence and review that construction. If it's for anything else, we don't have an automatic right to go in. If we're denied entry, if we go to a property and we've had a complaint or something that's been brought to our attention that there may be, usually it's zoning violations that we're investigating. It could be allegations of safety issues, but most likely it's a zoning issue. If there were denied entry, then we can't, our only recourse then would be to go to court and attempt to remedy it either through obtaining a search warrant or simply going ahead and filing criminal complaints and having the issue addressed through the court system. We don't have automatic right of entry. And this is on page 16. So the recommendation was proposed to change Article 5, 17, or actually Article 5 of the zoning ordinances that would allow them this tool in the toolkit, so to speak, for the administrative search warrant. So this has some meat to it, and the council, this committee may want to discuss it further, but to do that we will need a motion. That's correct. Either to keep it in committee or move it to the full council at some point. And you have a couple. If I could just make one point of clarification. I always want to hear from our parents. This addresses both the right of entry and the search warrant. I mean, right now, even though it's assumed you have the right of entry to do the inspection, it's really not clearly stated. So this really accomplishes two results. It clarifies to anyone that's subject to enforcement under here that our administrative people do, in fact, have the right to enter the premises. Now, if they have a problem with that upon being presented with the request, then our remedy would be to go to the district court and attempt to get an administrative search warrant. So that just kind of clarifies that entire process. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. Do it. When you talk about entering the property, are you talking about the physical property, or are you talking about the land around it? I mean, can you do a walk around, for instance? Technically, we can't enter any parts of property, whether that be the land or the building sitting on the land. We generally have to have permission. Now, obviously, lots of times we can see from street or sidewalk certain types of violations that are occurring on the exterior. But as far as what's going on in the interior, if we're refused entry, then we don't have any. The recourse is much more difficult. And we could also run into the same problem with a building permit, but our right to enter is clearly established back through state law on that. Okay, that's my second part of my question. An apartment house or structure where you have multiple domiciles, but there's common areas also. How are the common areas? How is that handled? Because it is somebody's enterprise, and it's a little different than a domicile. We typically would ask management for their permission to allow us into the properties. But can they refuse you? They can refuse us. That is correct. They could refuse us entry. But that's how we, on managed-type properties, apartment buildings and other type-managed facilities, we would ask the management or on-site personnel to allow us to come into those properties. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Beard. Council Member Blues. Well, I think that the task force, when it was discussing this issue, agreed that a means of access is important if building inspection is to be able to inspect and to, in many cases, take measures to ensure that the building is safe. So I move that this particular proposal be moved to the full council for its consideration. Motion and a second. We'll have discussion. I do have council. I have Council Member Gorton, and I'll come back to you, sir. And I will just say I appreciate Tom making the motion. That's what I was going to do. Thank you. We discussed this in depth on the task force. It's a really critical issue that they be able to get in. And so I think rather than keep it in the committee for discussion, we need to move this one forward. Well said. Well said. Council Member Stenet. I just want to address the housekeeping. Chris, I see you're here. Thank you, sir, for being here. This is a zoning text amendment. I assume if this moves to the full council and we pass it, would it then go to the Planning Commission and then back to council? Okay. I just want to make sure that the committee realizes that this would just be going to the full council and then the council passes to the Planning Commission, and then they'll eventually come back to the full council. I have a clarification from the vice mayor. So the motion technically is to ask the full council to initiate a text amendment. As exampled on page 15 with the article on page 16. And I think that's what Tom intended. Thank you. Thank you both. Other comments on this? I'm sorry, David. Yes, sir. This may be more appropriate after you get to the next subject area, but I think if you entertain doing the next proposed change as well, what would happen is this could be done in conjunction with that, the next change you're going to talk about, which is the civil fines. We just need direction. What I think I'm hearing you saying is you would proceed on having those actual resolutions that are included in here. Those would actually be put on your docket for a COW meeting, and then they would be brought to you all at a council meeting. That would be the mechanism to get them in front of you. I think the only question is are you going to do the next step also, and then we would probably only do one resolution that would do all of the things at once. You'll understand better in a minute. You're going to talk about potentially doing that. I was doing better until you got up. We just separated out the resolution, the sample in here. We just separated them out of two different recommendations because we may do one and not the other. That's why we separated. I think it's understandable. Are there any other comments on this motion? If not, we would proceed to vote. To vote. And I did an electronic vote. It's here. I'm using it. You don't have to, but it does pass unanimously. Thank you all. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Moving on to number four. Again, zoning violations are currently enforced by a criminal citation and are enforceable through the district court system. Many violators who do get a citation do appeal their case to district court, and sometimes it does take a lengthy amount of time to get that search warrant or that warrant to appear in court delivered as a warrant, do a subpoena, the subpoena that the sheriff delivers to appear in court. So we've had some issues with some properties taking up to three to six months. I have one in my district to even have the case heard, and while that's happening, they're continuing to operate illegally, either the business or the use. So the recommendation from the task force was continuing to make changes to Article 17, 23C, and 26 of the zoning ordinance, which would change the enforcement to a civil penalty process. And those appeals from the civil penalty would then be heard internally by the Infrastructure Hearing Board at their regular meetings. Now, that's important because under our current ordinances, that's the board that would hear appeals should we change it to a civil process. We did meet with that board. The board was at first reluctant, had some reservations, and rightfully so, based on the number of citations that were issued last year. But we quickly clarified that this is just those that appeal the violations, not the people that pay their civil fine or stop doing the use. This would be appeals, those that feel like they were wronged or shouldn't have had to pay or didn't violate the zoning ordinance, so to speak. So that would be put on their docket, and that would be heard. And I did put in there, starting on page 19, a list of those members and what the Infrastructure Hearing Board does. It currently, and the terms expired, as you can see, of the chair. So I'm sure the mayor will be appointing a new chair or a new person to that committee here soon on the Infrastructure Hearing Board. But the other members remain the same who we spoke to last year. And at the end of the meeting, I felt very positive they were properly notified and that they understood what they could expect should Council adopt this change and go through the Planning Commission and adopt this change. And we did agree from the Law Department that I always have legal representation there as well because they felt like the zoning ordinance was a very complicated item to discuss at their meetings. But we would have legal representation there, so they could also refer to them. that I would entertain either discussion or motion on Appendix 4 from any member of the planning committee. I don't have anybody signed up to say anything. We're going to jump around here. All right. Comments on Appendix 4 or its subject? It's not. Okay. Council Member Kaye. Yes. I would move this recommendation forward to Council and incorporate it into the previous recommendation as a zone change amendment. We have a motion and a second. Any commentary or discussion on that? Then we will dispense with the electronic vote, and I would ask you all to vote yay. Those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you all very much. That felt good. Council Member Stennett, on for it. Thank you, Chair. Next on page five, the fifth item, time limits on construction. This was brought to us again because there were certain residential properties that would apply for a building permit, and normal permits last 180 days. And after that 180 days, if they weren't finished or were still in process, they would come back down and ask for another permit for another 180 days. Well, for some properties that were mentioned in the task force, this went on for three or four or five years, if not longer. And we were looking for a way to say, hey, you know, what would be one, and it's on page 27 and 28, what would be some language that we could ask the state to adopt through the state legislature to allow us to define what is a reasonable time limit to finish a project and what we could reasonably enforce. One thing, if we simply said, and they went to do it, and said I want to renew my permit for the fifth time, if we said no, their appeal would be to the state. And then the state, if they didn't uphold our decision, they would come back and we'd have to grant the permit. So we had to go to the state legislature, which was chaired at the time by, or the state building. housing building who was chaired by our own Richard Maloney at the time so we can't go back to him but he is here now to answer but if you want to explain why your office chose not to help us and pursue it on a state level we would greatly be appreciative yes why you said no In our sample language that we sent to the state is on page 27. Thank you. I'm sorry, 28. Next page. What we tried to do was define what insufficient progress would be for reasons to deny another building permit, as well as how the additional permits would work. In my discussions with the legal counsel for the department, their concern is – The state building code is the same throughout Kentucky, and they have an issue, I think, with the potential of opening this up to other jurisdictions. They have a discomfort level with, frankly, modifying the entire building code to try to accommodate our specific jurisdictional concern. That's what was conveyed to me in my discussions with the cabinet on this particular issue. So I think what Council Member Stenet is suggesting is without that buy-in, it would be very difficult to get the ability. We can still attempt to do that, but we feel like it would possibly be much more difficult to have the building code changed to address our concern without having that buy-in and endorsement at the state level. So certainly it would still be an option to try to pursue this on our own, but the mechanism would be exactly the same. we have to get the relief through a change in the state building code because that's the identical document throughout the state of Kentucky, and it applies equally to everybody. Thank you. Just to follow up what he's saying is you can still propose this. My recommendation is you still give it a try and go in front of the board and make this recommendation in front of the board. The board will then vote on it. The good news is the board represents all the state in the different industries. that this could get out. And I guarantee if Lexington's having this problem, Bowling Green, Louisville, all the places are having the same problems we're having. And this is an opportunity that we may want to work with. I know that CAC having their conference down, which is with all the building code people come together, and I think that's in April, that's something that Duran and his staff can make a recommendation to the CAC conference, and that's a way to get it spread out through the whole state. And we also have another one in October, I believe. And so I still think there's potential there, but we can get the message across because I guarantee you all the other cities are having the same problems we're having. This is something that we can propose and go on, not just by ourselves, but have other cities help us with it. The more cities we get on board, I think we can get it passed. And, Chair, by virtue of our attempt to try to get the state to put this to the board of residential, is there board of residential code? It would go through the board of residential, then it would go then to the big board. Okay. That was our attempt to try to bring forward, so I don't think there's a concrete recommendation, but there obviously would be some room to keep this item moving forward. We have a couple of speakers on the issue, and let's see where it leads. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I know that during the years that I represented the 4th District, we had two particularly offensive properties in this regard. And I know that Mr. Crow is very familiar with one of them. Everybody knows the address by heart because it was so easy to get around the system and say you'd done some hammering and then two years later you did a little more hammering and five years later you were still hammering on the same building. And I think that it will be worthwhile to do exactly what you said, Mr. Maloney, and that is to pursue it as best we can and maybe to gather a coalition around the state, because if we don't try, we certainly will never get any relief. And so I would favor moving forward. I'm not exactly sure what the motion would be, where to. It's more than sending it to our legislative delegation to ask them for action. Mr. CAO, did you have a specific thought about where to send this recommendation or how to send it with emphasis? I couldn't hear you. I was trying to help with the vice mayor to couch a motion on how to bring this forward to the council for consideration, but where to send it and in what capacity to get some traction in Frankfurt. What I would do right now is let me and Dewey work with the CAC people, And I wouldn't go forward yet. Let us get a feel out on what support we can get across the state. And then we'll come back to the committee or you guys and see what kind of feel we get. And maybe we can get a resolution or something that you all can then go on forward it over to the board, housing and building construction and with support with others. So you could go forward with the verbiage that's in our packet, but we can keep the issue within the confines of the committee and take it up again at another meeting or further down the road. I think they'd probably prefer not to be locked in on the specific language so that they can have the flexibility. I think they're just trying to get a buy-in from some other jurisdictions, and this language may not be it. So I don't think they want to have to come back to you all necessarily to get approval for a specific language. I think they understand what the concept is and what the issue is. and maybe if we could get the latitude to work with these other jurisdictions on the issue, then we would have specific language, I think, come out of those meetings is what would happen. So I was just going to make a motion to keep this in committee. Very good. We have a motion to keep this issue in committee, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed like sign. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Henson, I'm sorry. I moved on to a vote there, but you may have commentary. I'm sorry. It says Henson here, but Council Member Beard. Actually, this doesn't necessarily relate to the motion previously made, But doing a scenario, if you will, a builder defaults on his loans to a bank, and the bank takes possession, and then attempts to find somebody or multiple somebodies to finish those jobs. How would that be handled by you all? Because you're not going to be dealing with the same individual entity. You're going to be going through a series of transactions ultimately to sell the house. And, you know, right now this situation would probably have cropped up. So how would we do in that case, I guess? You're correct. This has came up numerous times in the last few years as the economy slowed down and construction slowed up considerably. We've dealt with numerous banks and numerous lenders over not only single-family properties but commercial properties as well. What happens when they go into default and ultimately the bank takes that over? We typically have usually voided the permits by that time due to they've just stopped work. If they have not been voided, if things have progressed pretty quickly, ultimately then that permit is voided when the bank takes it over. If they then assume construction to finish the project, new permit would then be issued to whatever contractor that the bank is using, or it would be issued to the bank to follow through on. But it does have to change from the original contractor. Right. Okay. Thank you. That's all I needed. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Richard, I just wanted to ask about a time frame for getting this. I mean, should we put a time frame on it? Well, the good news is we have one of our employees under Dewey is one of the board members of the CAC board, which represents all the home builders throughout. And we could get that to him pretty quick and get him, when he goes to the meetings, and get the message out and get feedback. So I say hopefully by this summer I would like to have an answer because that will give us time when they have their conference in April and give us time to work out with other folks. So I would like to see maybe this summer if I can come back with an answer and get a feel where it's going. So if it came back up in committee, say, in August, or I just don't, I guess I don't want to lose traction. I want to make sure that, you know, if it stays in committee, it's definitely going to be heard. But I was just. Now, Kevin, still be the chairman of this, or just be just your committee. Bill Foreman. Your committee. So I can keep you informed. We'll just, I guess. Thank you. We'll add this to the existing committee items. It's one of those things we're just holding in committee, so we won't lose track of it. House Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Item number or recommendation number six on gravel permits. This was due to property owners that either expanded their existing gravel parking lines in certain districts or attempted to create a gravel parking lot when one did not previously exist. Current regulations prohibit any further gravel driveways in Fayette County as of 1990. So we had issues with the expansion of gravel parking lots. When one would go in there and refresh their current parking lot, they would make it a little bit bigger to accommodate other parking spaces in some residential areas. So a recommendation came from the administration at the time to create a gravel permit where they would come to building inspection to obtain a permit to do any type of gravel refreshing. The council put in this task force for further review. There were several issues with it, one being what happens if a normal residential property owner just wants to fill a pothole in on the residential driveway. They would have to come get a gravel permit or be in violation and be fined by not having to permit $500, so to speak. So we attempted on page 31 to come up with our own language. As a group, we just couldn't get comfortable enough with what language would justify creating a whole new permit system. So we do not have a recommendation going forward, Chair, unfortunately. But this item obviously could be kept in committee. I guess, Dewey, my big question from the task force is how often has this come up since we last met? Since we last met, how often has the gravel permit or gravel complaints come up since this task force last met in last November? Are we still having a problem with it? It's not been brought to my attention that we're receiving a large number of these. However, we are just now getting to the time of year where we see lots of refreshment of gravel as we come out of the winter season and the ground starts to thaw back out and the gravel has settled out over the course of the winter. This is when we get the majority of complaints about gravel refreshment and expanding gravel driveways starts in in the spring and runs up through the early part of the summer. We get less of those in the fall and winter, but we're anticipating getting, you know, receiving some of those in the next few months. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think this issue is going to go away. It will come back in various manifestations, and so I would think that we should keep it in committee and I would move to do so. Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor of saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Thank you. Council Member Stennett? Number seven, temporary structures. This item came before Council back in 2008 to the Planning Commission that was then chaired by Vice Mayor Gordon. We attempted, due to several large structures that were being placed in a residential neighborhood at the time, otherwise known as the Carrick House. That's what brought this to our attention. We did have several meetings back then on it. This was an item we brought Kane back up again in the Building Inspection Task Force. Some of the issues we were having is what happens when the car washes or the flower shops around town continue with their temporary structure and the structure is well beyond the 180 days that's normally allowed for a temporary structure. How do we grant them the exception or can we grant them an exception? to keep their structure up versus, you know, other structures that may interfere with the aesthetics of a residential neighborhood. You know, and we don't want to enforce it, in other words, on one entity and not enforce it uniformly across the board. And that's one of the reasons why no action was taken in 2008, because those entities that were justly using it and weren't affecting their neighbors using temporary structures, again, such as car washes and some restaurants in town, we didn't want to hinder them from being able to perform their business. So we did come up with some proposed changes. And Rochelle, can you come and kind of give us the, from a law standpoint on page 33, the language is there under the recommendation, but it's adding a particular language in that zoning ordinance that would give us what we're trying to change. Well, in essence, in the definitions section, we tried to be, right now there isn't actually even a definition in the zoning ordinance for a temporary structure. And building inspection was compelled to try to look to the building code, which basically is for the purposes of imposing code requirements having to do with structure and safety and what's required and really doesn't lend itself well to the arena of land use management. So basically this is to add a definition to give building inspection some support in regulating these structures. and infrastructure is going to be in place for more than 180 days. You know, it's a more permanent, continuous operation, such as some of these facilities and shopping centers and such. They have the option of going ahead and getting the permits, amending development plans, things like that, so that they're legal and they're there on a more permanent basis. That way we can regulate the impact on parking in these projects and things like that. if they are actually a temporary structure existing for less than 180 days, there's provision where in certain circumstances it will be a conditional use that will allow the property owner to go before the Board of Adjustment, propose what they want to do on the property, how long they want this temporary structure to exist, and then the conditional use permit can be fashioned in such a way with such conditions that it will appropriately fit on that property without having adverse impacts on surrounding properties and put conditions as are appropriate in each case. It could even be each year this property owner can have a temporary structure for this amount of time and for this purpose. It's not something like they would have to come back every single year. Each case would be able to be reviewed on an individual basis. And the feeling was that this would allow the flexibility so that legitimate businesses could continue to function in this way and not be restricted, but at the same time protect neighborhoods that are being adversely impacted by these massive temporary structures that in essence were never contemplated in the past in the land use venue. Thank you. And again, Chair, if I could finish up and add on to that, again, they would have to go before the Board of Adjustments to get a conditional use under the changes. And the changes are underlined in our packet starting on page 33, and these will be added to the zoning ordinance. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I have Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, just to put a little bit of emphasis on what Council Member Stennett said, For those of us who were on the council the past couple of years, we saw this problem be highlighted to a high level. And I would hope that these proposed changes would make a difference and help us not have situations like we had in the past. And so with that, I move to ask the full council to initiate text amendment to pertaining to temporary structures, those that are recommended here. We have a motion and a second. We're in discussion. I have Council Member Kay. I'm not clear how this language addresses the issue that kind of stimulated the whole conversation. My understanding was there was a concern that the existing regulation for temporary structures allowed someone to put up a temporary structure for 180 days, take it down for half a day, put it back up, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I don't see how this language would prevent that situation from happening again. Well, for one thing, previously there was no restriction that it was 180 days per calendar year period. That's what was allowing people to put up a structure for 180 days, take it down for one day, and put it right back up. Now that definition is considered on a 12-month basis. You cannot have the structure more than 180 days during a 12-month period. So that's going to prevent that problem. It also makes a conditional use almost any instance where that structure is going to be in place for more than 60 days. So if it's more than 60 days, it's going to go forward and be a conditional use, and the Board of Adjustment can put conditions as to whether they can have this for 180 days each calendar, each 12-month period, whether that's too intensive for the neighborhood where it's located. So it does grant an overview situation, and it prevents this, take it down for a day and put it up again. Okay. A follow-up. So, again, I just want to be sure that I'm clear about what the language means. Any temporary use would have to be approved as a conditional use by the Board of Adjustment? If it's going to be in place for more than 60 days and if it exceeds the minimum size that's set in these definitional requirements. So, you know, if someone is going to have a party in their backyard and they're going to put up a tent, it's just not even regulated. So 60 days is the threshold. Right. If a business is going to have a sidewalk sale, parking lot sale, it's going to be up there for, you know, five days, a week and a half, something like that, they don't have to come to the Board of Adjustment and get a conditional use. And with this language, there's no possibility to have a temporary structure in any calendar year that's up for more than 180 days. That's correct. If it's going to be present for more than 180 days continuously or in a calendar period, they are going to have to get it permitted as a permanent structure. We have changed our definition of permanent structure to talk about not only permanently fixed to the ground, but in continuous location there. So there is the ability to have one of these structures for longer, but it's going to have to be permitted like any other permanent structure with setback requirements, parking requirements, and all those things. Thank you. Other comments? We had a motion by the Vice Mayor, seconded by Council Member Blues. Forward these changes to the full council to ask the Planning Commission to generate Texas amendments accordingly. All those in favor of the second by saying aye. Opposed, like side? Thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. And then one last recommendation. We discussed software and application tracking. One big issue and one complaint we all hear is the ability to apply for permits online so people don't have to actually come down here. That may save several man hours of having a man at a desk and having a line waiting. Also, cross-departmental communication between the divisions, being able to look at a property, to see what's going on, whether it be a zoning violation or do they have a building permit for that property, allow other departments to be able to access that information, such as fire and code enforcement. So this was looking at purchasing software. We've already purchased Xcella software for the Division of Environmental Quality and use of the sanitary sewer system. This is a company that we already have the license with. It's going through implementation now. We asked the company, do they have the same type of software for code enforcement and building inspection, et cetera, and they do. The price tag you can see down there is $1.3 million to get it up and running, which is about a 16-month process. So the longer we delay, obviously money is tight in our budget, but the longer we delay, just add 16 months to that because it's going to take time to get our mainframe and our other software up to date and implemented with all of our codes and all of our processes to get it up and running for the taxpayer. So, one, this is customer service friendly. Two, it allows for departments to speak to one another, so to speak, so they can look at records. And it tracks, keeps a history, an archive history of things that have happened, whether it be a permit was issued for the property, a conditional use, et cetera. So I think it's a useful tool in the future and something to consider. So the task force did recommend purchasing that software when money does become available, of course. And that concludes the recommendations, Chair. I don't know if that one needs to – I know C.O. Maloney also has another software package that may be more beneficial, more useful. So it may be an item that we want to keep in committee and discuss it as money becomes available. Very good. Just want to give you an update. When I worked with housing, building, and construction, we had a similar problem with our software. Because when I first came on, we had the STAR system. And you all know how I felt about the STAR system when I left here. But the SAR system really is an accounting system, and I was able to work with my staff when we went out, and we found a software that deals with building codes, which you all are talking about, and building structures and permits online. The good news is it was going to cost some outrageous amount for us to buy, but they allowed us to buy as you go, pay as you go. Like if we get a permit, part of that permit we'll pay for, the computer software. But the state has agreed that they'd like to maybe hook on with us. Since we have a memorandum agreement with the state, with our building inspectors, this will be a great opportunity because the more they get on, the cheaper the price goes down, number one. And number two, it also keeps them track of all the buildings that are built throughout the state. So this is a great partnership. and I have a meeting set up with the housing building construction on this and I'd be glad to bring this proposal. It may not even, it may be a lot, it will be a lot cheaper than one and I think you all will be more sad of it. It's amazing what this system does. It's already out there. So I'll be glad to bring that to you guys. I think we would be pleased for you to move forward with that in that capacity. I believe it might be good on our end to have a motion to keep this in committee until that has had resolution. I move we keep this in committee. Motion and a second by Council Member Beard to keep this in our committee agenda. If there's no discussion, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion carries. Thank you. I was going to thank you, but I see you have more to say. Well, I just want to wrap it up by saying all the meeting minutes are in the last appendix, and I again want to thank my task force colleagues, Director Crow, thank you. Thank you to Chris King and Bill Sali, and, of course, Betty Kerr for attending all of our meetings, and our two attorneys, Rochelle and David, thank you all. And, of course, my A. Dina for doing all the minutes and everything. I know that's a big tour, and we've all wrestled with that recently. So thank you all. And, Chair, thank you for the opportunity to present today. Pleasure to have you here. And we did not address where building inspections should be located within LFUCG. So I know that's changed here coming up. So we did not address that in this task force. I've been asked by council members if we were going to discuss it today, and that is not part of the building inspection task force. You specifically did not address it, is what you're saying. Right. So I didn't want to give any. Subject for discussion and commentary. That's correct. I'll leave that with you. Thank you very much. Much appreciated. Thank you for all's work. Shows. With that, next on our agenda is the item of circus and carnivals definition, text amendment as posed by Council Member Henson. This begins on page 65 of our packet. And, Council Member, I would defer to you and welcome. Thank you, Chair. When this first came in, was first put into committee, I am fighting desperately to protect the entrances to neighborhoods. and there was a circus that went in the middle, right at the entrance actually, to a neighborhood. So when I went to building inspection who had issued the permit, I found that circuses and carnivals were defined together. So what I asked, I didn't see circuses as being, I saw it being totally different from a carnival because this was a huge tent that towered way over the properties that were located close to where it was. And so I asked, I worked with Chris King to come up with language to separate the two and disallow circuses within 200 feet of a residential zone, which I felt was appropriate. If you've read the ordinance, I think it's a good ordinance as written. I can't make a motion to move it forward because I'm not a member of the committee. Understood. But thank you for bringing it. And I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. And I have online Vice Mayor Gordon with questions or comments. Yes, I wanted to clarify that these would be text amendments, correct? Correct. That is correct, yes. Okay. And they have been vetted through planning, law. Who else has vetted them? I think that's an open question. Building inspection, yes, of course. So, and Council Member Henson, through your study of all this, you feel that these would help correct some of the problems? I think it would protect. when I looked at my district in particular and then tried to picture a good place for this service, there were not a lot of vacant lots within our city that you could place a large tent that would not be. The 200 feet, I think, is very good. And it is for the zoning, you know, to the zone, not the structure. It's to the zone. Well, I know when we talked about this before, one of the key points was the separation, which you mentioned of carnivals and circuses. And, I mean, I liked what I read, so I will go ahead and move that we ask the council to initiate text amendments to incorporate these changes into the zone. I have a motion. I have the Vice Mayor in a second by Council Member Ford. We're in discussion. I guess I would just ask if this obviously takes into account the footprint that Barnum and Bailey brings to town when they come and there would be no conflicts with them. Mr. King, welcome. That was obviously one of the concerns we had. And that's why when you look through this, you'll see that in virtually every business zone except two, now the circus becomes a conditional use. One of the two zones that it doesn't is in the downtown business zone that contains the Civic Center. So they would not have to be done. The other was the interchange service zones because we don't typically have residential close to those. So we felt fine with that. Thank you for that clarity. I appreciate it. Other comments or questions? Yes, Councilman. I just wanted to thank Chris so much. I have found that working with zoning can be very, very frustrating. And Dewey can attest to that. But I really appreciate your work, and Dewey, yours as well. Appreciate it very much, Councilman. Thank you. Thank you both. Other comments or questions? All those in favor of forwarding this to the full council, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Thank you. I did enjoy that one because the way your definition, the difference between council and mayor could be carnival and circus. That's just me. It's just me. I'm having fun. I'm enjoying being back. All right. That brings us to the existing committee items. And we have dispensed with one of those today. We've kind of added a couple things to our list, and I guess I would just ask if there's any comments or questions about the items that remain in the committee at this time. Hearing none, I'd ask for a motion to adjourn. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the signifying saying aye? Aye. Thank you all very much. I'm out.