Your life guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo We've got a full day ahead and there's plenty to talk about here. as you all look at the agenda let me just say that item number four placed by council member acres we are going to hear that later she won't be able to be with us today so we're going to wait for her on that so that'll leave a sample time to discuss these others just from a personal standpoint i'd like to leave enough time at the end to go through the items referred because i'd like to garden a few things off the list as possible before we go on our summer recess so having given that as background, I've edited through the minutes, but look forward to any additions or corrections to them. If you all there on the first six pages and really there are no motions. I don't think to bring forward to the council. However, several really good discussions, unless there's comment, I would ask for a motion to approve as submitted a second all those in favor opposed like sign thank you okay first up land disturbance permit fees this was placed via the links and vice mayor gorton into our committee and we have a really good presentation that starts on page seven and i would ask who is going to make that presentation commissioner welcome sir Thank you for moving the podium so you could stand at it. It's like arranging your own guillotine. Yes, that's great. Thank you for that vote. Confidence, sir. We'll see if we can make my death painless. Very good. We do have a presentation. Here we go. And we are simply kind of coming. We are coming back. In March, we gave a presentation on permit fees. This is our third presentation, our second more dedicated to land disturbance. And at that meeting, the committee asked that we put a little more, bring back a proposal that looks a little bit more, accounts for those various aspects that contribute to those costs. Basically, why would there be, you know, can we make it a little bit more close to what it costs? How would we go about doing that? We discussed during the meeting various things that lead to the complexity and length of reviews and how that might be better handled through a permit fee. So we have gone back, and again, just kind of given a quick brief to what a land disturbance permit is for. It's for clearing, grading, excavating, and filling activities. So you can run the gamut to single family development to center point to 400,000 square foot industrial development. So it ranges quite widely. Currently, the fee is $25 regardless, and there is no fee for a disturbance under 5,000 square feet. This is the number of permits issued last year. You can see they lean very or skew very heavy towards residential lots with some subdivisions, about 86 commercial and 8 demolition as well. In putting together this fee structure, again, at your request, looking through this a little bit more into what goes into the review and how we can figure out kind of a better idea of what would be a more accurate depiction of the cost. We talked with the engineers in new development within engineering that actually do the reviewing of these land disturbance permits and kind of get a sense of what are the ones that are quick, what are the ones that take a long time, and there's a lot of different things that go into those that can take a long time. But what it boiled down to, the two things, the two variables that seem to have the largest impact for project type and acreage of the development. Based on that, we put together a sample or proposed fee schedule along the lines that you asked for. We can kind of see here the new fee and the proposed increase. So, again, looking at single-family lots, there is no change. In talking to new development engineers, for the most part, these are very quick. When you're looking at a single lot, it can be largely filling out the paperwork, maybe take the most time out of the actual permit review. There are a few things, but for the most part, it doesn't take a great deal of time. Moving up to larger lots, again, still not a very long review. Again, just given to the size of the development being a single residential lot. But as we move into residential developments that get a little bit larger, the complexity starts to change. And this is where it varies greatly. When we say residential development, we are largely talking about subdivisions. So you can have some subdivisions that can run, especially very large ones, the review can take days, if not a week, or more. They can be very complex because of, again, some of the things associated with it. And that would be such as sanitary. It can be stormwater. It can be various different types of detention that are involved, as well as even in talking informally with some of the engineers, those that are involved with the actual filing of the permit application. Going over to commercial fees, again, there's a lot more complexity involved in these, and hence, for the most part, what they suggested was the amount of time, just basically taking that initial almost hourly fee or half-hour fee and just kind of increasing it based on what they felt the time it would take to review these. Again, complexity based on the type of project and the size will lead to a higher amount. These will vary. And looking at some of the other cities that are around, it is difficult to compare to other cities. Looking at Louisville, looking at Cincinnati, Knoxville, it's not very straightforward. This will be more straightforward than some. But, again, without taking into account the other costs of development, the other fees that are associated with it, it still is only one aspect of it, and that's where it gets very complex when looking at comparing these to other communities around. But, again, the bottom line is that the larger the development, the type of development, moving from residential to commercial, adds to the complexity of the review. And, again, to do this quickly, our recommendation is that based on the various things we're seeing right now in the development, largely the capacity assurance and the challenges it has for the development, we are not recommending that we would move forward with making these changes at this time. And if we were to move forward with this, I think we would want to take a little bit more closer look, working with the home builders and other groups to see how we might actually go about looking at these fees a little closer. And then that leads to questions. Appreciate that concise, direct, generated question. First off, from Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Commissioner, for bringing this back. So on the page, on page 12 and 13, the actual fee structure numbers, I gathered that you looked at other cities. We did. But how did you actually come to these numbers? Right, and that's the slide before here. So in talking with the engineers that actually do the review, we asked them, what is it that leads to it taking longer? And there are a host of different things that can add complexity. In fact, I had a discussion today a little bit longer with one of the engineers talking about specific projects that took a great deal of time. If there is, you know, the stormwater will matter a great deal, but if it's an off-site stormwater versus on-site, the complexity in terms of is it an apartment complex, is it a large subdivision, if it's just a single lot, single lots are very simple. But then also within that, there was one particular one that we discussed just kind of as an aside, but it was one that dealt with a stream. And you get into FEMA and various other issues associated with it, which can add complexity, which is really those are not taken into account here. and really are very difficult to try to take into account. You know, if there's a stream, I can't imagine we'd want to increase the fee because there's a stream associated with it. So when it came down to it for making it a more simple in terms of understanding how these fees could be increased in a logical way, it was the project type, again, going from residential single lots being the simplest to commercial, and then also multiplying that with the acreage. The larger the development, the more expense or the more time it took to review. I guess I was wondering more toward, let's take, for example, on page 12, residential development, one to five acres. And this, the current fee is $25, which it is for everything. And that would go to $500. So was that $500 based on an hourly estimate times? Was there a formula? or not a formula as much as that and that's why I say if we were really to move forward this I think okay I think we would want to look more closely at how we could put together this is a okay this is a I would I'll say this I think it's more of a first attempt I think we would want to have more public input particularly with home builders and and some commercial as well as to see how this actually work it is very difficult if you look at other communities and I do have a kind of a slide here about other communities this is a one-size-fits-all sort of fee if you do look at, and I was going to bring them, but I did not. If you look at the fees, and they are very difficult, basically what you run into is a lot of complexity. If you were to look at those fees in Knoxville and Cincinnati and Louisville, they are not easy to calculate. They are not easy to come up with. I think a more logical way to start is to look at that time for review and then to see how we go about it. A couple things. Can you send us this slide? Sure. It was actually in your previous presentation. Oh, it was? Yes, we just took this from the last presentation. The March 4th presentation. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Okay. And then, I mean, I agree with you. I think it would be really helpful to have more discussion about these and to get, I don't know how much input you had from the home builders, but to have a good back and forth discussion. And, I mean, I've talked to a few of them who agree $25 is pretty low, but then you look at some of these in the thousands, and that seems like a pretty big jump. So some further conversation, I think, would be really helpful. Again, one of the things to remember, even looking at the previous slide showing other communities, is it's the total cost of development. I think that's the thing that we're kind of losing here on this, which we brought in the very first presentation, which was when we gave some examples of different development types. and what all those permits are. Because I think looking at this just by itself is a little tough, because, again, it just gives you one snapshot. And that's why it's difficult to even compare to other communities. When we start looking at these other communities, the complexity involved in how they calculate just the land disturbance part of the fee and where it even comes in. In some communities, it's part of the plan review process. It's a very different way than we do it right now. So those costs, and I think that's what would ultimately, I think there's a lot more to discuss. but in terms of what we were tasked with was just to kind of look at those land disturbance fees and how we could come about with a different way of going about producing a different fee. We felt this was a good first shot to look at it. Okay. Well, I thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Next is Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for bringing this forward. I guess I have a few questions that really follow up on what the Vice Mayor has asked. The first is on page 14, consent degree programs such as capacity assurance are significant challenges for development. Can you say more about that? And part of the reason I ask the question is that my understanding is that so far capacity assurance, we have been handling that pretty well. And it's not been an increased impediment for development. and I'd like you to address that and then what else might there be going on that right now is more difficult for development? Well, again, I think you take this presentation and put it back in with the previous presentations where we talked about the total cost of development. I think it's where you start to run into the addition of other permit fees in addition to capacity assurance potential issues. One of the things that this doesn't take into account is where that would be. I mean, capacity assurance may be working fine right now in some areas, but in other areas it may not be. We just may have not seen that development. I know that we have people ask me, I mean, I get questions asked a lot about potential economic development areas. We do have some very large ED land parcels, and one of the constant questions we get when we get to that part is, could we go in with capacity? It will be dependent upon the size of the development, which this fee would also be associated with, and all the building permit fees will be associated with. but what kind of capacity they would need would depend on that type of development and could be very difficult in those areas. Adding to those may just be another impediment that we would have to do, particularly with exaction fees and other costs associated with it. Okay. And so you've said this is, in addition to your previous presentation, it's kind of a start. Can you say a little bit more about what you anticipate doing going forward to move this forward? Again, I don't anticipate moving this forward unless directed. I don't think that it would be something that we need to look at at this present time. I think that would be if Council wishes us to move forward and explore this more and bring this forward, we would then go forward with the home builders and others and try to get more input to see what they feel about this type of fee schedule. But at this point, the recommendation again remains to not move forward with an increase in fees at this present time. So it's not just to not move forward with fees at this present time, it's just to drop the issue. Is that, I mean, I just want to, I don't want to, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I just want to be clear. Yes. Okay. And is it, so if that's the case, I guess my understanding was that part of the initiative for doing this work was that we, there was a feeling that essentially the city is now subsidizing that program, that there are substantial costs to the city involved with those permits and that the fees don't cover them. and that there was an interest in making sure that those things balanced out. Is that not the case? That was not my understanding. We actually subsidize all permit fees currently, and that was part of the first presentation we gave was about if we were to actually make fees such that they covered the cost of the people who issued them, the permit fees would go up tremendously across the board. We do not, if you start in planning, the fees that we take in in planning do not cover the time of review there either. I think in every division those fees would increase dramatically. So if that was the impetus of what we were to do, then I apologize for misunderstanding that. We could come back with something with that, but I think those fees would be much higher in terms of actually covering the cost of review and not subsidizing our fees right now, or not subsidizing our work through the fees. Okay, so the charts that we've seen, I guess my thought was that that was that first attempt to actually reflect the full cost. If we were to take these fees, and we would have to break it down, but this would, no, I do not believe this would cover the full cost of an engineer. If that's what you're getting to, the full cost of subsidizing those that do the review. Okay, I guess I'm a little bit confused, but I'll yield and I might come back. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Next up is Council Member Clark. Thank you, Chair. Derek, I think I understand, and I understand that you're making a recommendation not to proceed further. And given that, what then do these increased fees represent? That's not a very good question, But why are we coming up with these new figures if we're recommending not to proceed? Well, again, that was asked to us by council at the last presentation. On the March 4th presentation, we recommended to not move forward with an increase in land disturbance fees, and we were asked to come back and put together, again, land disturbance permits that accounts for the various aspects, something a little bit closer to a different fee based on what we felt the time to review and other aspects that are involved. Closer to the actual cost? Again, I think the actual cost is a difficult thing to get down to. I mean, we're not paying. I don't think that was what we felt we were charged with in terms of hourly. The amount of fees that we have coming in would pay for the people that did the review. I think that's different than what we thought we were tasked with. Yeah. Well, I understand. And I guess my question is so vague, and I understand that. I'm just not sure why we came up with these figures if we're not going to move forward on it. For instance, that whole, you add all those together, you get about $14,000 worth of fees, I guess, something like that. But almost $13,000 of that is residential, so that would stay the same. So you wouldn't really have that much of an increase even if you raised them to these. And I'm not opposed to leaving it like it is. I was just trying to get some clarity in my own mind about why we've done this. But I do think if we're going to charge anything, I think $25 is probably, in my mind, not enough. And I don't want to soak the developers. I don't think we need to do that. But at the same time, it seems like to me that maybe $25 does not represent much of anything. We could almost not charge anything, and nobody would be that unhappy about it probably. Anyway, thank you, Derek. I appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. I would just do one little follow-up just to your commentary. I think that in looking at the genesis of this issue, and as each of us have said in link committee meetings, over the past couple of years it's been very important to sit in those meetings and try to find ways to help equal our budget out, because we had some very, very tough budgets to cover. And I think in that forum and for those types of discussions, looking at something where the same fee is used across the board becomes something we commonly index things here in one way or another. And I can see where that discussion happened in the link, and the vice mayor placed it in committee based upon that. But to your specific point, or even what Council Member Kay was bringing up, I don't think there was ever an attempt to rationalize cost of doing that business. I think it was just realizing the opportunity that potentially a flat structure isn't as efficient as one that might be indexed would be. But that's just my thought process on how the links works more than anything else. Vice Mayor, please. One more thing, Commissioner, and I unfortunately, I don't remember if we talked about this in the previous meeting or not, but what I think might be really helpful is if when someone, a developer, brings one of these types of development forward, it would be really helpful to see all the different fees that they're asked to pay. So that, I mean, if you look at this just on the face value of it, $25 might feed three people at McDonald's. I don't know if it does anymore or not. But if you add on to that the other fees, then we could get a sense of what a developer is actually paying for the single-family lot or for the residential development of 10-plus acres and how that compares. I mean, to look at the other cities and not understand other things they might charge is a little hard, like you said. And that actually was our first presentation that we gave. Was it? We did three different examples of developments with other communities. And from that, you asked us to look at plan disturbance, and then we've come to look at it a second time. So we have all that information. We did our best to compare it with some local communities around and get our best guess as to what all those fees. Again, it's not a very cut and dry to go through. So we did choose three different types of developments and show what the full development fees would be, including one single-family development, one multifamily residential, and a commercial development. And we picked some of the surrounding communities. Again, it's not a very easy thing to pick, but this was one of the numbers that jumped out, again, based on a slide such as that, that it really looked like it's much higher than the others. When you look at the overall cost of development, I think this was one that does stand out, but some of the other fees do not. And again, that doesn't include capacity assurance depending on where you are. And again, this is one of those things. There are some areas of the community that have exaction fees. There are others that will have capacity assurance issues. Not every area of the community has a capacity assurance issue. Not every area has an exaction fee. But there are those that do and can add significantly to the cost and the time as well. But that was our first presentation. If you were to have another or have a conversation with folks in the development community, when would it be? We could do it over break. I mean, I was just curious if we... And when we developed that first presentation, we worked very closely with the home builders to look at, you know, again, what types of developments make sense in terms of using it as examples, what other communities make sense to try to be comparative to. We did, I believe we pulled Louisville. We did pull some of the surrounding counties, if not all, the ones that we could. And again, tried to get a sense we had planning was involved, building inspection, engineering, just to try to really get a sense of what are the costs that we see in that new development process. And we did involve the home builders extensively in that to get their sense of what do they see in terms of those different fees that we don't see when we readily go to those websites for those other communities. So they were closely involved in the development of that presentation just to make sure that what we thought we were doing made sense to them from a developer and there were no hidden fees that we were missing somewhere. Did they have any input on the new fees? Not on this present. When we finished it, I sent it on. Last week I did send it on to Todd Johnson after it was complete, and we did have conversations after that. Okay. Because, I mean, it's a fine balance. You know, we like to keep things business friendly here so that we don't price people out of business. and yet there is the side of being sure that we're paying attention and are doing what's proper and what we think is right for government. So I'll go back and look at that other presentation. I had just forgotten about it and to look at the comparisons. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. I may see this a little differently than some of the other people here. I don't know. But my take on what would be useful does not include comparisons with other communities because, as you have said, the complexity of figuring out what they charge and how they charge and what that really means makes that information not that helpful. What would be more helpful to me as a council person is a little bit of an analysis about what the range of fees are and what roughly it costs the city to do the work that is behind those fees so that we could then look at it and make some informed decisions about whether the overall fee is too low or maybe it's fine, whether they ought to be differentiated, if so, how. And I think that is a conversation that should include the people who are active in the development community. It may be that there's a reasonable increase in some or all of those fees, given what the city has to do to do the work behind them. And it may be that we want to leave it just the way it is. But right now, I don't think we have the right information. So, again, comparison with other communities, to me, not that helpful, but analysis of what we charge, the whole range. If you're asking from a standpoint of when something comes into planning, how long does it take for different types of review based on the application? Same thing with building inspection. Same thing with new development engineering. We have not done that, like a cost of analysis type of review. We have not done that. That has not been something. But, again, if that's something to be reviewed, if that's something you would like us to look to, we could look into that from a cost of analysis. Well, I don't know how expensive that would be internally to do that. and how much of that information would really be useful. I think some of it would be, but I think that's at least something we ought to be considering. In my mind, it's related to kind of an ongoing issue, which we started in council with the buildings we own. We wanted to know who pays what so that we could make a decision about whether, if we're subsidizing them, whether that's the appropriate thing to do or not. And we tried to do the same thing, I think, and we're making progress. in social services. We wanted to kind of get a more regular handle on what we're really doing and how the process works. I think this is related to that, or it's similar. We might not choose to make any changes, but it seems to me right now we don't really know enough to make that decision. So I would at least be interested in pursuing the question of what additional information we could get without radically disrupting everybody's work. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So I hear kind of a conversation of a broader approach than what this has been placed in committee under heading name anyway. And I agree with you. If we want to look at that from a policy standpoint, I would like to, but I don't want it to cause a new Encyclopedia Britannica to be written in order to do so. So I think I had forgotten that there was presentational value previously around this issue. Maybe during the break we can work on some sort of a little miniature white paper, if you will, to include in our next packet or a succeeding packet about this in a broader view. I don't really want to move to change the name as it's titled, but I think your point of how we've looked at some of the things in their totality rather than just in the different silos, gives us the opportunity to look at this one potentially that way too. Yeah, and if I can just say one other thing, it seems to me that on the face of it, charging a $25 fee to a development that entails millions of dollars of development and one that entails thousands of dollars of development, it's on the face of it a little bit inequitable. But I think that's why the discussion is important to see what other fees are paid to get to that $25. Fair enough. Is this on the same page? Yes. All right. Can we work on that offline and be ready? Yes, sir. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. All right. Next is item number three, which is our residential parking permit district procedures. This is an issue that Councilmember Clark and I have teamed up on, although he's done the vast majority of the work, and I will turn the discussion at this time over to him and thank him for his work. Thank you very much, Chair. And we have a brief PowerPoint presentation that we would like to present. Please. And let me give you a little bit of a background. This issue came up because there was a considerable uproar when we reserved parking close to Lexington Catholic. And everything went according to the law, and the process was done exactly as it was designated. The problem with the process was that the council had been waiving the process since, if you see the background, between 1991 and 1993. The council decided that it was unnecessary, time-consuming, and expensive to go through all the meeting notices and the advertisements and so forth. So they simply made the decision to waive the mechanics. And that's where we got caught with the Lexington Catholic because the folks at Lexington Catholic did not know anything about it, according to them. And so they were very unhappy about it when it came to the resolution of the council. And the next. So the resolution basically we felt like was outdated. because we had been waiving the process forever. And so the problem with, in this particular case, one of the things that the ordinance said was that the traffic generators, in other words, in this case, Lexington Catholic, was not notified, as the resolution said. They were not notified because it was waived. And so the other problem is that we have created the Lexington Parking Authority since then, of course, and that's not mentioned in anything, and yet they have a large responsibility to doing that. And, of course, we want this to be as transparent as we possibly can make it and still make it effective. Before I continue, I want to say that this resolution pretty much takes care of the problems that we've noted. and uh but gary has gary with lex park has indicated his agreement with this pretty much and uh but he still has to he still has to take it to his board uh on thursday i believe it is so whatever we do today we'll be pending on his agreement in the agreement of his board okay next the blue chevrons indicate that this is what has been done in the past then the red ones are new the the process goes as as normal where the the citizens petition and they they have to have 65 percent of the addresses for that particular block or street that stays the same this is a major change the citizens identify the reasonably identifiable traffic generator when turning in the petition now this is different and the reason it's different is because Lex Park was was very concerned about giving them the responsibility of identifying the traffic generator they would not they could not agree to that and so what I did is just simply put it back into the resolution that the citizens who are creating the petition would identify who the traffic generator is when they file the petition. They have to fill out a form that parking authority gives them, and they simply add to that form who the traffic generator is. So that happens automatically then. The traffic study is conducted by the parking authority, and if that is cleared and it fits the regs, then the parking authority simply writes a recommendation to the council member involved. And in Lexington Catholic's case, that was me. The council member then places the RPPP on the docket. And this is a change at least 21 days after receiving the recommendation from the parking authority. That 21 days gives the parking authority the time to notify the people in that residential area and also gives them time to notify the traffic generator if that group or entity is able to be identified. Then, because we have 21 days, the public comment will be scheduled to coincide with the council work session that is 21 days after that recommendation is received. And consequently, the parking authority mails a notice to all the folks that are in that address, in that block, and to the traffic generator as has been identified by the residents and the petitioners. The parking authority then will place notices in the right-of-way 14 days prior to the work session. So if anybody in that neighborhood wants to know that this is happening, then they will be able to see the notices that are placed on the street. And the traffic generator, if for some reason we're unable to identify that entity, then they will have the opportunity to see those notices as well. So then once all that has happened, the matter goes to the council for the action as we have been doing already. I think that pretty well takes care of it. Are there any questions? Council Member, well, let me see. Do you want to speak first, Council Member Gordon? Please, go ahead. I'll come back to you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Council Member Clark. So I had one question as I was reading through the packet. On page 19 of our packet, the letter from Gary Means to Mr. Sanner, the very last sentence says further, because the traffic generator is not always a known entity, Lexington Parking Authority does not wish to take on the responsibility of notifying the traffic generator. Did you, but that's in the plan. It is in the plan. You're bringing forward. It is in the plan. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Means about that? Yes, we did. We met, Mike Sanner and myself and Gary Means met. We talked about the resolution as we drafted it, and he agreed to that. But, again, as I say, he needs to take it to the board. He feels comfortable that they will approve it. But, of course, if they don't, then we have to come back and make whatever adjustments we have to make. But, yes, we did talk about that, and he's agreed that that's – and the reason he's agreed to it is because they no longer have to identify the traffic generator. Yes, I understand. That made all the difference in the world. Okay. That's where we, that's where we, originally I had asked, not only asked them to identify the traffic generator, but I had suggested the possibility of them holding the hearing rather than people coming to the council. But I realized later that that probably was not reasonable. They didn't want to do that. And the more we thought about it, the more we realized that that was probably not necessary. And so a good resolution and compromise from all of us, I think, has made this possible. Okay. I appreciate that. And I saw Gary shaking his head yes. So thank you for your work on this. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, ma'am. Customer Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. My question also had to do with the traffic generator. And I guess if you could go through the scenario that we went through with Lexington Catholic. and when you're talking about that, would you put notices on the cars on their, is that how you would know, and then they would get back with you to contact you? Or if it was, most of the ones that have happened of the 42 or thereabouts we've had have been mostly in the 3rd District, and usually it's students in neighborhoods, and they're going to come and go, come and go in different ones. So in this situation, how do you know who that traffic generator is, and how do you identify them to have them contact you? That's the reason it says reasonably identifiable. And that was the original language, as a matter of fact. And, well, in that particular case, the traffic generator would be Lexington Catholic. It wouldn't be those students. It would be Lexington Catholic. And so the contact would be made with that school. If it's U.K., then the contact is made with U.K. And if it's a company that employees are parking in that area and it's identifiable, then we notify that company and give them the plans to hold a hearing. How are you identifying that, though, with the cars? Are you checking their license plate and see where they are, or are you putting something on theirs to have them contact you to know where they're coming from, to know actually who these people are? Well, so we'll know that these are Lexington Catholic students. Are you putting something on to say, are you stopping them to say, why are you parking here? As far as I know, Council Member Ellinger, that's never been done. I just want to know how you know that that is that entity that you're trying to warn that this is being looked at to know who those people are. Well, I can't imagine anybody not knowing that if you see cars on Stratford that you know they're students. But that's not that one, but we're looking in the future just to know who those are. You just try to identify where the traffic is coming from for that area. That's the best you can do, I think. And is that our responsibility to say we took that away from the parking authority? No, it's Lex Park. It'd be Lex Park? But here's the key, Chuck. When the petitioners fill out the form, they are responsible for it. That's where it comes in. They're responsible. Yes, it is now their responsibility, not Lex Park's, nor the council's. So when we moved it back to the petitioners, then that really cleared up the message. Okay. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Council Member Clark, for this report. I just have a question as it pertains to the respective council members' role. And by way of background, I've only had one residential parking program request in my district in my time here. and I can't recall as I sit here this afternoon whether or not I brought forth a motion to put it on the docket or whether or not it was blue sheeted and went through the regular administrative process and so that's kind of the gist of my question in regards to the proposed that the council member will place the permit program on the docket at least 21 days after receiving a recommendation in general let me ask two questions in general are all permit requests brought forth this is assuming that all residential parking permits are brought forth from council members is that the general practice or are some brought forth through administrative blue sheet process go ahead sir I'll try to answer that. Council Member Ford, I've only had one, too, one very interesting one. So I'm not sure there was nothing typical about it, I suspect. But I think what has happened in the past, if I understand it correctly, is that it has always been the council member for that particular district that has brought it and has put it on the docket. Okay. Mr. Sander, welcome. Yes, I've been working with this for four or five years, and everyone that I've been involved in, the council member has brought it forward. Most of them have been in council member Lawless' district. So I don't recall it ever being brought forward by the administration. It's always been the council member. Okay. It's usually, if I may, a pretty focused issue that comes to the district council member. I'm not saying that a circuit couldn't go another direction, but I think it's direct effect, and the district member is that person. Okay. And just for clarity, explain or expound upon the 21-day, Mike, the 21-day, or Council Member Clark, the 21-day post-receipt presentation to the work session docket. Well, let me try to answer that. And then, Mike, you can follow up if you'd like. I would like. but the 21 days is simply to give the parking authority time to notify the residents when this will be on the docket so they can come and talk about it. Others can complain about it or whatever, but 21 days is enough time then to let people know, and the Lexington Parking Authority will notify the residents of that street, and that's the reason for the 21 days. and then the 14 days is a time factor where something is posted on that street. So the 21 days gives then everyone time to deal with the matter. Mike, is that basically the idea? That's correct. The 21 days was to give the Lex Park seven days to notify. They'll notify the traffic generator, if known by mail, 14 days prior. the residents on the street by mail 14 days prior to the work session and they will post signs on the proposed parking permit area 14 days prior to the work session. So that was to give Lex Park seven days to do all that and then give all the community enough time to plan to come to the meeting for public comment. Excellent. I have just one other question. Yes, sir. And this goes back to the blue sheet process in the administrative review. And I guess there is, based on what we have on the books now with the resolution and what's being proposed, with all the hard work that Council Member Clark has brought forth, there is no official role of the administration in this review process. Is that correct? This is solely a... As far as I know, the petition goes straight to Lex Park. Lex Park does their study, makes their recommendations, forwards their recommendations to the council member whose district it is in. Thanks, Mike. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I may come back. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I wanted some clarification on if the traffic or the parking, the generator, is a school, and it's during the summer, and the only notice they would get would be the signage, the posting on the streets. Is that correct? or like and i'm going back to the incident of like uh lakeston catholic okay their school is out during the summer and maybe this would be proposed during that summer break how would we get the word to them that this was going to occur Well, if I can answer that, Mr. Chair. Council Member, I think that even in that case, the schools are administratively open and would be capable of receiving a notice like this, even though the students wouldn't be in place, and of course there would be no problem during the summer, but the administration would be there. and I think in that case they would get the notice without any problem. So would they be mailed a notice? Yes. Okay. I just wanted to make sure in addition to the signage, the generator would also receive a letter. Be notified. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Very well. Thank you. Now, Council Member Lawless. Thank you. I'm a little out of breath, but I'm here. Well, we can let someone else go. One of the issues I have with notifying the generator is, especially in my district where the bulk of these are, Is the generator UK? Is it the rental properties? Is it the UK hospital personnel, staff? Is it the bars and clubs? it's really there's no way to really say what the generator is. Oftentimes it's faculty and staff that drive to the neighborhoods and park there and get on that little bus at Dantzler and ride over to UK. Or it's several rental properties that have on one street that have as many as 12 in a duplex renters and their friends and et cetera. So who is the generator? And as far as Lexington Catholic goes, I believe if they had been notified, we would have heard, well, Mary Queen wasn't notified. You know, they talked about that. So I think putting a notice, posting a notice at the entryways is certainly a clear way to get that message to all the traffic, all the parking generators. Because people that park on those streets that don't live there would see that and know it was coming. And it seems to me that that would be a far more, that's far more efficient than trying to fetter out which is, who is that traffic generator or that parking generator. Does that make sense? Maybe part of the discussion happened just a little bit before you got here was there's a two-page, I guess is the updated, the most updated version that really wasn't part of our packet. Okay. Okay. If we get to the point where we, and Council Member Clark, I'm going to direct this at you, if we get to the point where we take a motion on this, we would do so based on your handout rather than what was in the packet, so to speak. The kind of... There's one change in the... Yes, sir. I think by way of explanation, in terms of who the generator is, the point that Council Member Clark had made was that in asking folks to turn in a petition, have them say who the generator is, not for anyone else to determine it. Let those who are petitioning say who they think it is. Would that come to the point you're talking about? I did see that, and I don't think so because, again, they don't know who those cars necessarily belong to that are parking on their street. Unfortunately, how can you say that? How do you know that they don't know it? If you're an interested and involved neighbor, how would you not figure out what's going on around you if you're going out and getting petitions? I mean, I'm just saying. Well, they're parking, and they always overpark. They hang over the driveways, et cetera, in these neighborhoods. But that would require them to look up that license plate number, see who it was registered to, and where they were at that particular time. as one alternative other than just figuring out where they work, I guess. Sir? Let me answer. Council Member Lawless, one of the things that was, of course, a lot of this language was waived by the council, and that's the reason it came up. And even in the original ordinance, it said reasonably identifiable traffic generator. That was the language. And that's the language that's still in it. So if the resident just simply can't do it, then Lexington Parking Authority is not required to send a letter to somebody that the residents can't identify. But they'll still put up signs 14 days before it comes to council. And so I think that I'll take care of it. It's not a perfect system, as you know. Yeah, I mean, a perfect system would be, I don't know, people would just fly to work. But I do think the signs are going to be more effective at letting the generators know this is coming. But if they can't, you know, if that's in there so that they don't have to, and then they come back and say, well, I wasn't notified. So thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. Councilmember Beard. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Clark, let me... You've worked with this situation as it relates to Luxton Catholic. Is the issue students parking at 8 o'clock in the morning until 3.30 in the afternoon? or is it overflow at a football game or is it all of the above? Because like with the football game, if they're playing Scott County, half of Scott County will be there also and being a generator of one evening. And what do you do? I mean, how far along was it Stratford? How far can it go? How can it be the only street parking? Or are there others that? It's the only street parking because that's what the residents have asked for. The residents of that block of Stratford has asked for this. And, of course, what the Lexington Catholic is afraid of is this is going to generate other interests from other streets, other parts of Stratford. Right. They're concerned about that, of course, and I certainly understand that. But let me also clarify that one of my promises to Lexington Catholic in the hubbub of all that was that one thing we would do is, if it is possible to identify a traffic generator, we would write the ordinance so that would be done if it was possible. And I think that was the major concern that Lexington Catholic had. They didn't want to lose the parking, but at the same time, they knew it was the law. And so they agreed that, okay, we can accept that, but we want to know. And so that's what the new ordinance does. It gives us the opportunity to tell them this is going to happen. The petition has been generated, and we're going to talk about it in council. So they can come to council and disagree with us or whatever, but at least it gives them the opportunity. There's a transparency here that will let everybody know what's going on. Well, most of the high schools in Lexington, anywhere, Fayette County, are 15 to 20 percent over their normal student levels. and that won't get fixed now for probably another two and a half years when they build the newest high school and redistrict everybody. It should be a lot of fun, too, I imagine. Thank you for the help. It would be nice, as Lexington Catholic has grown over the years, somewhere along the line they're going to outgrow that whole location. at some point. And they're aware of that. They've even looked into the possibility of doing some busing, private busing, and they've decided that's not going to work. There's even state money that would help them do that, but they still don't think it's a viable option. So they're looking into it. They do have a problem. I agree with you. But at least this new resolution would help the major issue, and that is they would know when this was happening. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm glad Gary has come up to the podium because I have a question. My previous comments alluded to the administrative review process and all those things, but as Council Member Clark has pointed out with his research, when this was originally drafted in the early 90s, Lex Park did not exist. And again, you guys were very helpful to me and my constituents over on Miller Street. I remember that permit program maybe two years ago, so now. How do you guys talk to us very briefly in regards to what does your study entail? And how do you engage applicable divisions of government in your study, i.e. traffic engineering, division of police, et cetera? We pretty much took over the role that traffic engineering did in terms of responding to the study and doing the study and the criteria that's mentioned about reaching the 75% of occupancy and of those occupants of vehicles, more than 25% are non-residents. We took on that role from traffic engineering. We'll go back and engage traffic engineering. There are some roads, and there's been some in the 3rd District, that had an existing no parking down one side, And now the residents say, we'd rather be able to park there. Can we get rid of that? So we'll engage traffic engineering if we're going to make a decision like that based on the requests from the residents that may affect something else that we're unaware of. So if we know we're going to make a change outside of these normal guidelines, we'll engage traffic engineering. To your question, you know, originally it was administrative on having the notices and having the public hearing. All of that was sort of administrative, and traffic engineering did the study. So we basically took the role of traffic engineering, and then somewhere along 1993 or so, all the other things began to be waived. You know, the notice and putting it in the paper and having a public hearing, that's just been ongoing for a long time. So where we put it now is the citizens will either come through the council member with their issues or come directly to us, and we'll typically work with the council member to make them aware of it. And in the case, I wanted to speak to Council Member Beard's question about the football game. In this case, we talked to them about what hours do you really need? When is the real problem? And they collectively decided that football games are only so many times a year, and they would live with the street being parked up because that's only so many times a year. But it was an everyday issue during the school year. So they elected to go with, I think, 8 to 4, 8 to 5, something like that. So Friday nights, even though it's a residential permit parking district, it'll state what the hours are. And there's a couple of different oddballs. Most of them that are around the U.K. area like a 7 to 4, 8 to 5, but there's one out on South Point that is right near some ball fields. It's only in the evenings because of the ball field traffic. And then there's one on South Hill that chose to go 10 a.m. to noon. Basically, that keeps the all-day downtown employee off their street, but if they want to have friends over for lunch or whatever, they don't have to worry about permits. So we'll give them some advice and say, you know, this may work better for you. And that's kind of how we get to the point of what they want to put on their petition. Let me ask another question. Thank you for those responses, Gary. Let me ask this question. Once you guys engage in the study, what is your interaction with traffic engineering and police? If we're just doing a study that's a street like Stratford that didn't, or let's just say one that didn't have any requirements, that one did have some no parking on one side. If there's no parking restrictions at all, we'll take it and not typically engage with police or traffic engineering because it's a request from the citizen. This is a very well-written document for the most part, other than these edits that we've made recently. It builds in. You've got to meet this criteria. So we'll do a two-week study, and it's always really cut and dry. They're either going to meet the criteria or they're not. And there's been a few studies over the years prior to us that a street requested it, but they didn't meet the criteria. Usually, if they've got a bad enough problem, they'll meet those criteria. Then we write the letter of recommendation, and it comes to you all. And then this is where this would pick up. Whatever council member gets that letter from us would then propose to put it on a work session 21 days out. And then we would start that notification process. Now, we already have the list of addresses, so we can pretty much turn that notice pretty quickly. So if they identify a traffic generator as this is being proposed, we'd find that address, send a letter to them, same letter that says on such and such a date during work session, this will come up for public comment. And that's how we visualize that working. Thank you. Okay. He was kind of answering Councilmember Beards, but still in your time. More, please. I think I'm going to leave it there. I don't want to create more of a problem than one that exists. It doesn't appear that there have been conflicts, I would say, between what Lex Park recommends and what traffic engineering or police may see as. For example, over in Lexington Catholic, it started with Stratford. But if other streets in a nearby area pursue residential parking permit programs and Lex Park recommends it, we very well could inadvertently come up with now what is a traffic engineering issue. It's possible. I'm not aware of any conflicts. Traffic engineering has always supported the recommendation we would make. And if we engage with police, in 3rd District you have streets where they'll post signs for game day parking. And we always work with each other in these things that may have different kind of restrictions that pop up. But if it's purely the resident saying, we've got a problem here. This ordinance was written for us. We want you to come out and do a study. And if they meet the criteria, we put in the permit program. And it really isn't a traffic flow. It actually helps with safety and traffic flow. That's one of the criterias of this whole program. And again, I compliment the council back in 91 because for the most part it's very well written and it covers all the bases. And hardly, I don't think there's been one residential district over the years that's reneged or rescinded it later. It usually solves the problem and it works for the years in the future. My sense is that you have a trepidation about the administration not being involved. Is that it? Or am I wrong in my interpretive? Yes, I think, I believe it becomes an administrative function to a certain extent after the study is done. But the issue about the council member basically carrying the issue forward once the study is done is it seems to me that more formalized that, and I'm just going to throw something out there. If traffic engineering could, particularly now that we're going to put in the 21-day waiting period before we can bring something back to the, that really makes it an administrative burden on the respective council member. I'm not bothered by that notion at all because we've always felt like once we've studied it and they met the criteria that it's council's decision at that point to move it forward. And I think what I'm hearing you say is that maybe another level of review by some staff might make sense. I wouldn't have any issue. But I would say keep in mind that any of these residents who finally get the petition done and do the study, and Council Member Lawless can attest, they are banging on all of our doors and e-mails, when is this going to get passed, when is this going to get passed. So once they know that it's in motion, hopefully we don't overburden the process so that they can't get there resolved in a timely manner. That would be the only comment I'd add to that. Does that make sense? It does. Thanks. I'll leave it there. I'm very appreciative of what Council Member Clark has brought forth, and it sounds like an improvement in what we have now. Thank you, sir. Thanks, Gary. Thank you both. Council Member Clark, excellent work here. Council, Mr. Chair, let me just say I'd like to thank Mike and Gary for their help in making this come together like this. Thank you all. And I think your adaptive use of chevrons is really great in your presentation. Do you want to make a motion for the committee to consider this legislation? Yes, I would move that we consider this moving into council. Motion and a second. We're in discussion of this would be on the two-page handout that is of resolution, amending resolution 168-90 and replacing it with verbiage that we have been discussing here that begins on the second page and runs through to the third page. And I'm just saying that by way of seeing if there's any discussion. And all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, like sign. Well done. Thank you, Councilmember. I appreciate that very much. As earlier indicated, we're going to skip item four for now and roll it down to a succeeding meeting, which would bring us to item number five, off-premise signage, which is brought to us by Councilmember Lawless. Councilmember. we have prepared a short presentation we did have a conversation with council member lawless about this item to clarify sort of the issues that she was looking at within her district and and we're certainly sensitive to those issues and what we came down to was the the issue here is really the real estate signage within her district and in other parts of town. I know I've noticed some of those issues in my neighborhood as well. So an overview on signage. Article 17 of the zoning ordinance regulates signage generally. The Division of Building Inspection, they permit all permanent signage, structural issues with signage. The Division of Planning enforces most aspects of that ordinance, and much of that was transferred, as you are all well aware, whenever those zoning enforcement issues were moved to the Division of Planning from Building Inspection. In addition, it does reference that code enforcement enforces signs that are attached to utility poles, streetlights, trees, as well as signs in the right-of-way. There are several signs in the zoning ordinance that are exempt from permitting. Those include political signs, nameplates, governmental signs, real estate signs, incidental signs, window signs, as well as just changing of the text on certain signage. A real estate sign is defined in the ordinances as a temporary sign indicating only the sale, lease, or rental of property or buildings on which the sign is erected. So it does have to be located on that parcel. It further regulates that all the real estate signs and track signs should be removed within 10 days after the completion of that activity, whether that's sales or lease activities. There are some other restrictions. Real estate signs are limited to one sign per street frontage, so most lots would be a single sign. Corner lots would be allowed two. There are some restrictions on size and illumination. those generally refer to a sign that would be used for a subdivision development or something like that rather than an individual parcel. Some other notes is that by definition a real estate sign must be located on the property which is being leased or sold. So it cannot be on another parcel. There is currently no regulation regarding how far in advance of that real estate activity that the sign can be put up. It does limit it to the 10 days after as we stated. So there are some enforcement challenges that we do have to recognize here. It's difficult to determine if a vacancy exists, when a vacancy occurred, or when it was filled on a rental property. Real estate signs are exempt from permitting, so it's also difficult to determine when the sign was placed at the property. And it's important to note there are more than 56,000 rental units in Lexington, and just to date in 2014, there's been 4,000 property transfers. So if you look at that as a scale of how many signs could legally be put up, that's a fairly significant amount. So some of our solutions include meeting with our landlord and apartment associations to inform them of these ordinance restrictions. They are sort of buried within the signage ordinance. So maybe just an informational session with them to let them know only one sign per street frontage is allowed and that it has to be removed within 10 days would maybe be a first step. Another alternative would be to explore our enforcement options for signs when there's a property that has more than one per street frontage. We do think it would be exceedingly difficult to determine when signs were put up and when vacancies occurred and to be able to time that appropriately. But it's relatively easy to determine that if there are more than one per street frontage. So we do think we could explore alternative enforcement options. We'll obviously have to speak with the law department about that. One example is that code enforcement isn't given the authority to pick up the signs in the right-of-way. So we could explore transferring that to the Division of Code Enforcement as they're already engaged in that activity. Obviously, we will have to check with the law department because signs in the right-of-way are picked up, and that is on public property. And these would be signs that are on private property, so we would have to navigate the legalities of that. So with that, I will turn it to any questions from the committee. Thank you for the presentation. First up is Council Member Lawless. Thank you very much for your work on this. And it's certainly been a very difficult issue long before I was on council, but certainly since I've been on council. I have one question as I was reading over this, and that is, what is an incidental sign? So let me pull up the zoning ordinance here. Is that like somebody's installing windows? Well, and I just spoke with our director of planning, and typically with those signs, those are not regulated in the instance that, you know, someone puts up a sign for a construction activity that's temporary in nature. We would not have an issue there. Yeah, I don't have an issue. I just wondered. Obviously, if they are within the right-of-way, code enforcement is able to collect those if they're reported. But let me. I just didn't know what an incidental sign is. Incidental signs are typically the examples given in the article of the zoning ordinance include no trespassing signs, no solicitation signs, things like that. Okay. I was just curious. The one, and this has gone on for years, there are signs that are placed, especially in the university area, in the high traffic areas such as Euclid, High, Maxwell, Elizabeth Street, Waller. Yeah. Right. Absolutely. You know the folks. And they're left often year-round. And they all say the same thing. Like one company will say, you know, for at least $359 per person, well, you know that every single property they have is not that price, okay? Often it will be just a website, and they'll have two or three different websites that directs you to the same rental company. And I was trying to put together my own little PowerPoint of signs. For instance, on Euclid, on the corner of maybe Kentucky and Euclid, there are two signs with two different web addresses. So, and if you go down High Street, you'll see probably 45 to 60% of the houses have a rental sign in front of them. Different rentals. Some of them are rental management agencies. And clearly, they're not, all those are not for rent. and they're also not for rent year-round. So I understand the difficulty, but what it does to the neighborhood is, I mean, it's an eyesore. I mean, who would want to drive down those streets and say, hey, I think I'd like to live on this street, you know, or one block over. And these are our major corridors that are the highest targets. And so everybody coming through Lexington to go downtown or UK or to see if they want to have a business here, they have to drive through this, you know, sun garden. And it seems to me that 30 days prior to the residence being, you know, the lease ending and being up for rent again is plenty of time to put a sign up saying for rent. I know that it is difficult. difficult, it's made it even, oh, I'm out of time. I'll just punch back in. Okay, seeing no others. Council Member Lawless. Okay. It really, it decreases, I think, the value and sustainability of these neighborhoods. And it is primarily a handful of landlords that do this. And something needs to be done. My suggestion is it used to be a lot easier because you could call and say, hey, I want to rent the house at X, you know, blah, blah. and they'd say, well, that really isn't for rent, but we have another one two blocks over. Okay, that was clearly a violation. But at that time, it was under building inspection, and it was a criminal offense, and nothing was ever going to be done about it. But I have a whole posse of constituents that can tell you exactly when signs go up and exactly when they come down and whether or not they're in there. You know, I mean, I get calls almost, it's between this and gravel, okay? But if there were a fine for putting up signs for off-premises signage, then, you know, I think we need to look at some kind of penalty for doing that Because, you know, and talking to the landlords, that's been done over and over and over and over and over again. And there's no consequence. They make money doing it. And they have no care or concern for those neighborhoods, the bad actors. And there is currently a fine for violating the current provisions of the ordinance. However, as we say, it's very difficult to determine when something is in violation, which is sort of the issue that we have and the administrative burden that comes along with determining those. Well, and I mean, I think that we can have citizen volunteers. We have neighborhood watch. We could have citizen volunteers call and say, I'm looking to rent, you know, blah, blah, and turn it in. So, I mean, what is the fine? I believe the fine is. It's 75. Hello, Director King. Hello. Thank you. The fine after a citation would be issued, and it would take quite a process before you got to a citation. And as you can, I'm sure, understand, it would have to be more than someone saying that there's a violation before we could even assess a citation. It would be like saying, I saw somebody speed down Euclid Avenue and therefore them getting a ticket. But $75 is the fine for a first offense. And how many people have been fined? For a real estate sign, none that I'm aware of, but I could go back and check. Well, again, we have to verify that the sign was there, that there was no, we'd have to get permission to go on the property and verify that there was or was not a vacancy or one to be before we could. And then we would always give people time to remove the sign before we would issue a citation. It seems to me that we are overly permissive. I mean, it's not like you have 14 days to fix your sidewalk or paint your house. We're talking about pulling up a sign. You know, if it's rented and the sign's out there, and clearly it's not for that particular property, and there's nothing on those signs that says it's for that particular property. That's the other thing is it's this myukhome.com or my this, you know, or the same price is on every single sign by one particular renter that there should be a fine. And code enforcement clearly could do this. And again, if it's rented and they've got the sign out there why it has to go through such a lengthy process to make them pull it up. I think one of the difficulties is determining if it is in fact rented. And if there are vacant rooms versus the entire property being vacant or vacant units within that building, that is somewhat of a difficult thing to determine and burdensome to do so. So I think that was our concern with the enforcement. Oh, and I agree. However, what I'm saying is I think that we have all kinds of neighborhood watch groups that could call code enforcement and say, can you call? I called and they said there's nothing for rent at that place or there's nothing for rent at that price at that particular location. and code enforcement could go out there and say, you know, do you have it or not? And if not, pull the thing up. I mean, you know, why does it take 14 days to pull up a sign? And I think that there needs to be escalating fines on this. But it's extremely, it's just, it's what it is doing to these neighborhoods and the sustainability and the livability and cluttering our primary corridors around UK is really sinful. I understand. And I think we have concern about the blight that that would cause to a neighborhood. and we're certainly willing to explore some different enforcement options for what we currently do, just with the understanding that there may be some difficulty in actually determining when a violation is. Oh, yeah. I mean, we're not going to get them all. I understand that. But if there was some consequence and it was immediate, maybe it would catch on. Just saying. And I think that happens over in some of your neighborhoods, doesn't it? I'm still back on you and your posse, but that's something I'll have to work through. My posse? Yeah, you and your posse of constituents. That's my favorite part so far. I think from his commentary, they're willing to explore alternative enforcement options for properties with more than one sign per street frontage. Would that be correct? Correct. Would that continue this conversation in a positive manner in your estimation? Well, yeah, especially when it's from two different real estate people. We'll look forward to a follow-up from you. Time to be determined. Thank you. Does that work? Well, I would like to explore the fines, putting it under code enforcement, and putting a, you know, escalating fines for the landlords that are continually doing this and moving forward, if nothing else, on a pilot program. But, you know, my favorite sign, as I was out yesterday taking photos, which somehow I lost in my little camera, was one on Euclid that is about a king-size white sheet with a basketball player that says, UK has balls. But I'm sure that's not a rental sign, and I think we can get that taken care of. I don't believe that we've addressed that in this presentation. I just found it humorous, and I realize it is not a rental sign. Thank you. Thank you. That would bring us to our last item on the agenda, which we have a few minutes to work through, which is our Planning and Public Works Committee referrals. I would just like to run down through them since we have a few moments. The very first one is review street tree and street protection ordinances, which I think is something we want to leave in the committee, but I think there's council members who may want to make comment to that during work session, and we may broaden this topic to include some other parts of policymaking, and I think when that's done, we might bind this issue in under the broader canopy of issues, so to speak. next is the possible revision of sign ordinance which is something i'm going to spend some time with director king during our our recess i think he has educated me to kind of a simpler answer than i hope to bring forward although i will say underneath this discussion there has been interest in some of the abandoned signage around town and some some things to do with it to either use it or lose it, so to speak. Next is private street enforcement and maintenance specifications. And this is placed in by Council Member Mazzotti. So I guess without her today, we will leave that as it is. H1 notification process. So this is placed by Council Member Myers. What is the basis for this? Can you give me a feel? As best as I can remember, this issue was placed in committee after the, is it the Ashland Park H1 petition and there was some concern about notification. Do you want to ask him for some clarity on it? I'd be happy. Because I think either we need to grind on it or find another way to pull it off. Maintenance of major roadways is something that we carry, in my opinion, as a committee, we carried this through and came to a rounded up decision that we should have money set aside in our paving budget for the paving of arterials and in this instance although we didn't fund it at the budget it was 1.2 or 1.4 million? 1.6 I thought. 1.6 so if we've made that policy do we need to keep this issue in committee or then I would ask for a motion to remove so moved motion a second Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Thank you. All right. Greenway Manual and Plan. I think since the council member is not here today, we'll leave that as it were. Let's see. Vice Mayor, fees to offset historic preservation services. Well, we discussed that once. Yes, ma'am. and as I recall, they did not want to bring anything forward, correct? I believe that was similar to today's presentation. I'm sorry, which one? This is fees to offset historic preservation services as placed by Vice Mayor Gorton, 12-5-13, and we had some conversation about it in March at our meeting. I'm okay to remove it unless someone else wants to keep it. Move to remove. Motion and second by Council Member Kay. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like sign. Thank you. Next is explore providing assistance to low-income homeowners with code compliance. That one, we have talked about it. We're taking up that issue in work session later on today. And we can leave this until after that's been dispensed with just to make sure it's covered. Examine fee structure for planning, preservation, and development services. You had an active day there, Vice Mayor. I did have an active day with the commissioner, and I think he did not recommend that we go forward with anything on this issue either. So... Unless there's a champion, or is... I move to remove it. I'll ask you to remove it in a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Thank you. Homeowner Association rights responsibilities. We'll leave that for Councilmember Acre's next meeting. Leaf collection review. We did have that. And we gave them kind of A, B, C, D. Because I believe we have dealt with it and are going to deal with it. Move to remove it. Second. Motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like, signed. Thank you. multi-way stop at Glendover and Valley. This was placed by Council Member Beard. We heard it in February, but I think there's been some subsequent action taken there. Do we want for this to remain in committee? And if we do, that's fine. Yes, we do. We're moving in baby steps in an attempt to see what the best approach is. And right now, as we speak, some of the activity there is taking place by traffic engineering. Okay. Very good, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Would it be possible to get a little more information at this point on that issue? There's been a lot of input from all sides on this, and I don't know if it's appropriate. We have time, and we're a body of discussion. What are they doing today, or what's going on today, I guess? They have moved a stop sign closer to Glendover Road. Valley, it was back somewhat. And they're going to add a flashing light that had some problems with the neighborhood about that. but it will be controlled and will be turned off at night to help that situation. And then there's going to be some striping that's going to take place also. Pretty good. Should traffic calm all of Glendover and still allow access to Glendover through Valley Road and Southern Heights Neighborhood Association, which is everything behind Landover. Okay. Enough information, sir, or more? But we're leaving it on for further discussion. I gather that there's still some issues. I've heard from a number of people that there's some concern about what decisions have been made and how they've been made and what is going to happen eventually. So I don't know if that's, again, we may not have to have that conversation today, but it seems to me that for some people this is still a live issue. Okay. Vice Mayor Gorton. Well, if I can just add, if you'll remember, the traffic engineering study recommended not doing a three-way stop because none of the levels of the warrants were met. And so their feeling was a three-way stop, and this is in writing, we've got the report, a three-way stop without some intersection work, an island and other things, would potentially make it more dangerous. Yes, ma'am. So Council Member Beard and I met with traffic engineering, and so that we didn't go against what they were saying, they helped come up with this new fix. So this issue has not been vetted fully in all the neighborhoods. It's my perception, and I'm very familiar with this. I go through here every day. It's my perception there are a handful of people who are very verbal about wanting what they want. And so we're trying to work with traffic engineering to get a solution that they think might be helpful and not harmful, if that makes any sense. It does. My only concern is the middle portion of what you said, which is that it's not been fully vetted. And it may be a handful. I've been led to believe that there's a couple of neighborhood associations. That may or may not be the case, but I think this is one of those issues which would be helpful to either have open conversations in the neighborhood. I don't know if we have to have it here, but just so that everyone is clear about the details you've just provided and what the options are. And that has not, to my knowledge, occurred. There was one neighborhood where eight people voted to support a three-way stop. Most people who've driven through there for years and years and years don't perceive a problem, which traffic engineering confirmed. So a lot got stirred up, I think, by the vocal people, which was four or six people. Four, to be more accurate. Four people. And so the multi-way stop, to my way of thinking right now, is a dead issue because traffic engineering is doing something else that they think will help the problem. Plus, if I might, there's ancillary utilization of that stop and the striping that's going to take place. for whatever reason, it's a 25-mile-per-hour street, Glendover is. Going east on Glendover, the traffic engineering study showed that it was averaging 39 miles an hour in a 25-mile-an-hour, and that's not acceptable. I don't care what anybody says, that's not acceptable. especially when you're going toward a school where you have youngsters released by the traffic guard, and then God knows what happens to them after that. It gets a little, and that's why many of the parents haul the children back and forth. They don't want them walking. so anytime you go up glendover school you'll see 50 70 cars all lined up with uh with parents and they just keep on coming until they pick up a goodly portion of the children so that they don't have to uh have to walk so there really had not been a motion to remove this but you had asked a different question on the subject, I think. Well, I think I had. Again, my only concern is that I have received emails. I presume everybody has. I don't think I'm the only. Maybe they just sent them to the at-large people, but I have received numerous emails that essentially say there's still a significant number of people in the neighborhood who feel that the efforts that are now being undertaken do not address their underlying concerns. And it may be that they've been addressed, but it's not clear to me that they have been and that they understand that. And so I don't have a strong notion about what we need to do except I would like more information for those folks and to have them feel like they're being listened to. And so if leaving it on here is the way to do that and to... The first thing I wouldn't do is take it off then. Okay. I would leave it to leave at least discussion open. And that's the purpose of doing this one step at a time, to see what works and what doesn't work and when, and we adjust from there. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Excellent discussion. Next, code enforcement fines as placed by Councilmember Lawless and evidently we had some input on this in May and I don't remember the discussion at that time, to be honest. We did have some what they were, what the fines were, but not discussion on increasing them or what we needed to do, I don't think. Our understanding is that we would be coming back with a follow-up on that that would address some of our standard operating procedures and other issues associated with the fines and other aspects of code enforcement. Thank you both. Okay, then building inspection civil offenses. And I take it from this, we have not heard that yet. We have not. Beautiful. All right, off-premise signage, we've had that discussion. But clearly there's more to do. If you say so. Streetlight installation plan placed by Council Member Stennett. Excuse me? Yes, ma'am. I mean, basically, all we did today, I think, was say they couldn't have more than one sign in front of the same building. well i thought staff was going to bring back some other information okay i said i didn't think we were through with that and you said if you say so but um streetlight installation plan which council member stentett placed and i guess from this that we have not heard this yet there there was a discussion about the street light um the moratorium on the street lights That has since started. He's asked for an installation plan, I believe, from former acting Commissioner Martin. He sent that on to Senate. I don't know that it still needs to be in committee, but I don't know that it still doesn't need to be in committee. We'll ask him on that and on the next one, the snow removal plan, which evidently is still to be. We did hear it in May then, I guess. Wow. Okay. I think we have dispensed with the residential parking permit procedures as of our meeting today, and I ask for a motion to remove that. So moved. Second. Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Initiate. This is Council Member Akers. Let's just leave that. Council Member Kay, we know we're in, well, we will spell the word design correctly, design excellence ordinance, and we will leave that for its next update. The affordable housing issue, like the one up above, we will leave it in, but it is something I believe we will take action on during our work session today. And then this is one I just placed in May about fiber optic technology, which I would just like an update personally about that. We'll work on the diligence of that during the break. Vice Mayor Gordon had placed the issue of the University Master Plan in committee for me, I think. and it's something we've had some great background discussion on but nothing that's risen to the point of a presentation here or something we had time for. I think their planning process is something that should be of interest to us and indeed part of that, their capital planning to go along with it and I think it would be a very good discussion to have sometime after we've had our break. And then Council Member Senate just placed the one about the map fund usage. and then the next one is the electrical inspection fees which we'll hear that after break and then we're down to the things that are on our evergreen group updates about Oliver Lewis Way Todd's Road widening downtown traffic study and the design excellence update so I think those uh that discussion well it didn't take as many things out as I personally might have wanted it did make a difference and I appreciate that very much are there any other topics or issues to come before the committee at this time from anyone motion in a second all those in favor thank you very much Thank you.