# Inter Governmental Committee - November 11, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 11, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/648 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/648?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-11-11 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 8,819 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Inter-Governmental Committee met on November 11, 2008, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, Government Center, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. CM DeCamp presided over the meeting, which included five agenda items, three motions and votes, and nine public comments. The committee addressed several matters during the session. Two items were deferred or postponed for future consideration: Temporary Structures (Stevens) was deferred, while the Citizens' Advocate Office Standards/Policy & Procedures Manual (Myers/Ellinger) and Boards/Commissions Reporting (Myers) were both postponed. Two informational presentations were delivered: one on a Proposed New Compensation System by Gorton and an Update on Committee Items. The committee took three votes during the meeting and heard nine public comments from members of the public. ## Attendance **Present:** - CM DeCamp - CM Beard - CM Stinnett - CM Crosbie - CM Blevins - CM Henson - Dewey Crowe - Jessica Case - Steve Hobbs - Alan Stein - Bart Shockley - Doug Martin - Rena Wiseman - Amjad Abu Hanik - Ken Littrell - Clark Gaise - Bill Sallee **Absent:** - CM James - CM Myers - CM Gray - CM Blevins **Late:** None recorded ## Votes and Decisions The Council took three votes during this meeting, all of which passed by voice vote. **Motion to Restrict Speaking Time on Temporary Structures** [timestamp: 00:15:13] CM Beard moved to restrict speaking time on temporary structures to six minutes per speaker. CM Stinnett seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote with no abstentions. **Motion to Review Citizen's Advocate Office Standards** [timestamp: 01:07:37] CM Beard moved to allow time for the Council to review the Citizen's Advocate Office Standards/Policy & Procedures Manual and discuss it at the next meeting. CM Blevins seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote with no abstentions. **Motion to Adjourn** [timestamp: 01:08:43] CM Blevins moved to adjourn the meeting. CM Crosbie seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote with no abstentions. ## Public Comment Nine speakers addressed the proposed text amendment regarding temporary structures in the zoning ordinance. **Support for the Amendment** Jessica Case, representing seven individuals on 3rd Street, supported the amendment to define temporary structures and prevent abuse of the 180-day rule, citing the Carrick House as a key example of how current regulations allow circumvention of historic preservation requirements [timestamp: 00:16:08]. Amjad Abu Hanik, representing Marathon Food Mart, supported the amendment and emphasized the positive impact of the Carrick House on downtown, urging a narrowly tailored solution [timestamp: 00:42:46]. Clark Gaise, speaking for downtown residents, supported the amendment but recommended modifications to exclude seasonal uses and allow multiple short-term uses to avoid unintended consequences [timestamp: 00:45:01]. **Opposition to the Amendment** Steve Hobbs of Lexington Magic Carpets opposed limiting temporary structures to 60 days, arguing the restriction would hinder seasonal events at the Fayette Mall and reduce business flexibility [timestamp: 00:24:16]. Alan Stein of the Lexington Legends warned that the amendment would disrupt seasonal operations at Applebee's Park, which rely on temporary structures that cannot be dismantled mid-season [timestamp: 00:26:23]. Bart Shockley objected on behalf of Paul Miller Ford, stating that temporary tents are essential for national advertising campaigns and critical to their automotive business model [timestamp: 00:29:52]. Doug Martin, representing Sunshine Growth Shops, argued that seasonal outdoor sales are vital and that the amendment would impose undue regulatory burden, especially on small businesses [timestamp: 00:31:28]. Rena Wiseman, representing Carrick House owners, opposed the amendment, asserting that the structure complies with all rules, serves a legitimate business purpose, and that the amendment unfairly targets one property [timestamp: 00:35:26]. Ken Littrell of Clean Sweep Car Wash warned that the amendment could harm small businesses that rely on temporary structures for seasonal operations and shade [timestamp: 00:43:49]. ## Appointments CM James was appointed to the Inter-Governmental Committee. ## Contested Items **Temporary Structures Text Amendment** A proposal to amend the zoning ordinance's definition of temporary structures generated heated discussion during the meeting. The amendment aimed to close what supporters characterized as a loophole in the zoning code that allowed structures to circumvent historic preservation and design review processes. Opponents of the amendment argued that the proposal unfairly targeted the Carrick House and would cause harm to seasonal businesses. Their concerns centered on the potential negative impact the stricter definition would have on commercial operations that relied on temporary installations. Supporters of the amendment emphasized the necessity of closing the identified loophole to ensure that historic preservation standards and design review requirements could not be avoided through the use of temporary structures. They framed the amendment as essential regulatory clarification. The nature of this disagreement reflected a fundamental tension between preserving regulatory oversight of historic properties and design standards on one hand, and protecting business operations and specific properties from what opponents viewed as disproportionate restrictions on the other. ## Temporary Structures - Stevens (1-9) [timestamp: 00:00:00] The committee discussed a proposed text amendment to define temporary structures in the zoning ordinance. The amendment was prompted by concerns regarding the Carrick House structure. **Discussion and Testimony** Multiple stakeholders testified both in support of and in opposition to the proposed amendment. Key speakers included Dewey Crowe, Jessica Case, Steve Hobbs, Alan Stein, Bart Shockley, Doug Martin, Rena Wiseman, Amjad Abu Hanik, Ken Littrell, Clark Gaise, and Bill Sallee. **Central Debate** A primary point of contention emerged regarding the scope and intent of the amendment. Debate centered on whether the proposed text amendment would unfairly target one specific property or whether it would address a broader loophole in the existing zoning ordinance regarding temporary structures. **Committee Action** Rather than voting on the amendment immediately, the committee agreed to appoint a subcommittee to conduct a comprehensive review of the entire zoning ordinance based on the testimony presented during the discussion. **Outcome** The agenda item was deferred pending the subcommittee's review. ## Citizens' Advocate Office Standards/ Policy & Procedures Manual - Myers/Ellinger [timestamp: 01:04:51] The committee reviewed a draft manual for the Citizens' Advocate Office that had been developed through multiple meetings involving the Citizen's Advocate and council members. The manual outlines standards, policies, and procedures for the office's operations. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Council Members Myers, DeCamp, Stinnett, Crosbie, and Ellinger, as well as Ms. Beck. **Action Taken** A motion was made to allow additional time for committee members to review the draft manual before proceeding with further discussion. This motion passed unanimously, indicating that the committee determined more review time was necessary before substantive deliberation could occur on the manual's contents. **Outcome** The agenda item was postponed pending completion of the review period. ## Proposed New Compensation System - Gorton [timestamp: 00:08:25] Commissioner Koch provided an update on the proposed new compensation system for Gorton. The presentation addressed implementation timelines and current constraints affecting the project rollout. **Key Points:** - Implementation of the new compensation system has been delayed due to resource constraints related to the Peoplesoft rollout - A revised schedule for the compensation system will be provided following the completion of Peoplesoft implementation **Outcome:** This agenda item was presented as informational, with no formal action taken. Commissioner Koch indicated that further details on implementation timing would be available once the Peoplesoft system is fully deployed. ## Boards/Commissions Reporting - Myers (76-84) [timestamp: 01:04:51] This agenda item was postponed to the next meeting. Councilmember DeCamp noted that the item could not proceed as scheduled due to the absence of key members, including Councilmember Myers, whose participation was necessary for the discussion. **Outcome:** Postponed to next meeting ## Update on Committee Items (85) No motions or updates were presented during this segment of the meeting. This agenda item was designated as informational in nature, with no substantive discussion or action items recorded. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to restrict speaking time on temporary structures to six minutes per speaker - **Motion** — passed: Motion to allow time for Council to review the Citizen’s Advocate Office Standards/Policy & Procedures Manual and discuss at next meeting - **Motion** — passed: Motion to adjourn the meeting --- ## Full transcript I'm aware my heart is a sad affair. Watch it. Sorry. There's much disillusion there. Lifted it, huh? Well, I can dream, can't I? Can I adore you? Although we are oceans apart, I can't make you open your heart, but I can dream, can't I? I'm aware my heart is a sad affair. There's much disillusion there, but I can dream. Can I, can I adore you? Although we are oceans apart, I can't make you open your heart, but I can dream ever. I can dream, can't I? Thank you. I want to speak on the item of temporary structures, and we're putting a list in the back of you. Please sign up so we'll know how many, and you know we're limited to three minutes unless you've been given time from someone else. So we should be able to start here in a few minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The Intergovernmental Committee together. First of all, Andrea James, who is the chair of this committee, could not be here today. He's got laryngitis, and you can't chair a committee without being able to talk. So I'm the vice chair, so I am going to run the meeting today. And my voice is given out, but I think I'll make it. And unfortunately, Paul Schoeninger, who's a staff member to this committee, cannot be here today. So we'll clip along on a wing and a prayer and see what happens. I would like to make one quick change in the agenda and be brought up to date by Commissioner Coe on the proposed new compensation system, which will only take a few minutes. So, Commissioner, if you could. Thank you. I think you're used to hearing regularly from Wally Barker in the Division of Human Resources. We've been meeting over the last few weeks about the progress of the new compensation compensation system and actually have made a decision to push the time frame out a ways on that one. We were scheduled to be ready to roll with a new system July 1, 2009. Given the implementation of PeopleSoft, a human capital management module, all of the same people that are involved in the compensation system are also involved in the implementation of PeopleSoft. And since we're paying contractors to help us with the implementation, it made better sense to concentrate our efforts in that area rather than trying to hit the July 1, 2009 date. I regret that Council Member Gordon isn't here because I know she in particular is interested in this issue, and I'll make an attempt to get up with her personally. But I hope no one sees a problem with this, but it really was a resource issue, as well as the fact that I think we all recognize if we go to a different compensation system, there are some areas of government that would see increases in salaries. And to set the expectation today that we could give those salaries on July 1, 2009, I think is setting an unrealistic expectation. We're beginning to put the budget together, the numbers together to begin working on the budget for 2010. It's ugly, and there's just no reason we believe to, across government, set an expectation that there might be money there for something that we just don't see in the short term. It doesn't mean we've completely abandoned the project. We haven't set a new date, but we do need to get through this PeopleSoft implementation, and then we'll be back to you with a revised schedule. Thank you, Commissioner. Appreciate you bringing us up to date. We'll go to the next item, which has to do with temporary structures. Unfortunately, Dr. Stevens, who put this in committee, is not here. He might arrive a little later. But first of all, I think if you all who were here last time remember that Councilmember Crosby made a motion which was approved for building inspection to provide a list of businesses affected by any change in the ordinance and also notify businesses that they have received a temporary structure occupancy use permit within the last three years for public input in case they want to come for public input at this November meeting. And it was seconded by Council Member Stenet and passed. So therefore, I'd like to, I have a list of people who'd like to speak. Before we do, I would like to have the Director of Building Inspection, Dewey Crow, kind of kick it off and tell us what he has done to accomplish this. Good afternoon. As the previous Intergovernmental Committee requested, we did go back and do a survey of our all temporary occupancy certificates that were issued over the last three years. We went through those and determined which one of those applied directly to temporary structures. That turned out to be about 135 total. Of those, many of them were duplicates of just repeat users. We actually then cut that, took out the duplicates as best we could and actually sent out 76 letters to notify those individuals of potential changes or proposed changes to the temporary structure requirements. We not only sent letters, that 76 not only included letters going out to the actual applicant who got the certificate, but also the underlying property owner as well because they could also have be impacted by this since they might not be able to lease use of specific lots or specific locations to someone who's going to use a temporary structure. So that 76 also included the underlying property owners. Okay, thank you. Could someone from the legal department, I think there's someone here, could you come up? I need to ask you a question. The next presenter has asked to go over the three minute limit because she had a letter from six people on the 300 block. But do the people have to be here to turn their time over to? Restrictions are in essence under the control of the chairperson of any committee or board. So it is up to you as chairperson or a decision by this committee as a whole to determine whether they want to alter the ordinary time limits. There is no legal standard for that. Okay. Thank you. If there's no objection, Jessica Case is an attorney on behalf of 421 West 2nd Street. and she has requested 15 minutes to speak. She has a letter from seven people on West 2nd who have asked that she be given this. I think one of them is here. Before you do that, I'm here, Rena Wiseman, on behalf of Eric House, and I have letters of support. They're not here, but we would like to have time for all the letters. I will give you both the same amount of time. Let's compromise in 15 minutes. Would that be all right with everybody here? No? Not really, Chair. This is, you know, maybe one iteration, total of six minutes. But I think what we're going to hear, if in fact they're speaking for other people, is that we're going to hear the same thing six times. All right. Anybody else? You want to make a motion that we restrict it? I would make a motion we restrict it to six minutes. Can I ask a question? Is that just for the two who have letters? You're not restricting it to six minutes to each person who wants to speak? Can you justify your motion? No, just the ones that request. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. All right, we'll give you six minutes. Jessica Case, you want to start off? Before I begin, I just want to state for the record that I have asked for three minutes for each of the seven individuals on whose behalf I'm here today. And that this request has been denied and that I've been limited to six minutes. In that event, I'll have to skip some of the portion of what I was going to say to you today, but I'll submit that to you in written form after the meeting in the interest of expediency. I'm here on behalf of David Helmers, Darrell Brown, Lindy Brown, John Morgan, Linda Carroll, Lorella Lederer, Kim Comstock. My clients are either residents of or own businesses with offices on 3rd Street between Limestone and Martin Luther King. These Lexingtonians care about their neighborhood, about downtown, and about the development of our community as a whole, and they support the text amendment proposed by the LFUCD Legal Department now being considered by this committee. Why do they support this text amendment? Well, for a number of reasons. They support the text amendment because it is needed. As you all know, under the current state of the law, the Kentucky Building Code at Section 107 allows local building officials to issue permits for temporary structures and uses limited to a period of no more than 180 days. This is the only guidance given us when dealing with the issue of temporary structures, either in the Kentucky Building Code or the LFUCG Zoning Ordinance. The way this is currently interpreted, a property owner can erect a structure, any type of structure, from tents to mortar buildings and beyond, and call it a temporary structure if they agree to abide by the 180-day time limitation. The limitation requires only that the property owner, at the expiration of the 180-day period, render the structure unusable for as little as one hour. The property owner is not even required to remove the structure from the property before reapplying for another 180-day permit and promptly re-erecting the structure. This cycle can continue out of an item. This cycle is most recently and perhaps most infamously demonstrated by the 4,000-square-foot temporary structure erected adjacent to the Carrick House property on North Limestone. The structure was erected in April of 2007 and was permitted for the 180-day period ending October 18, 2008. What was supposed to happen at the end of this 180-day period was that the tent was to be removed entirely from the site and then another permit was to be applied for. Instead, what happened was that the structure was partially taken down and rendered unusable for less than one full day. The picture of the tent structure as it was fully dismantled is in the packet of materials I gave you and demonstrates that it was not removed from the property but only partially taken down. You might ask, what is wrong with this cycle? I'm sorry, should I stop? Is there... okay. Well, this cycle allows a property owner within an H1 overlay to avoid the protections afforded by that overlay, including that certain modifications to properties within an H1 overlay must be approved by the LFUCG Office of Historic Preservation or the Board of Architectural Review to ensure that those changes comply with the design guidelines and maintain the integrity of those historic districts. Currently, a business owner within an H-1 overlay must obtain BOAR approval before installing a sign for their business or before executing a landscape plan, but does not need to obtain prior approval before installing a temporary structure on their site. In other words, and again using the case of the Carrick House as a paradigm, the property owners had to go through a more arduous review and application procedure prior to installing the wooden sign in front of the Carrick House than they did before erecting the 4,000 square foot structure adjacent to the house. Another problem with the existing scheme is that it discourages property owners from constructing permanent structures that would comply with the relevant guidelines and inspections and would more fit appropriately within the fabric of our community. As the law currently stands, a business owner is discouraged from embarking on the oftentimes lengthy design review and a pupil process necessary to obtain a permit to build a permanent structure. Yet another problem with the existing scheme is that it allows a property owner to avoid property taxes by conducting business in a temporary structure not subject to such taxes. In the case of the Carrick House temporary structure, LFUCG is thereby missing out on an additional 5,000 square feet of property taxes each year, 4 to 5,000. My clients support this text amendment because both the Council, the LFUCG Legal Department, the Office of Historic Preservation, and the Office of Building Inspection have all recognized the problems posed by the current state of the law and the need for a definition of temporary structure within our zoning ordinance. The neighbors on whose behalf I speak support this text amendment, but in the interest of more narrowly tailoring the amendment, they have considered the myriad uses of temporary structures within our community, and have realized that the current version of the amendment could place somewhat unreasonable restrictions on seasonal businesses, such as flower shops, fireworks stands, and the like. These are businesses who oftentimes operate in temporary structures on the same piece of property, but who do not operate continuously throughout the year. To resolve these issues, my clients would like to suggest, for this committee's consideration, following modifications to the suggested text amendment. First, we would suggest that a temporary structure be defined as anything constructed and placed on the ground, the use of which is designed for use or occupancy for either a continuous period of less than 180 days in any rolling 12-month period, or multiple periods that aggregate to a total of 180 days, after which period all portions of this structure must be totally removed from the site. Thank you. Thank you. We do have your letter here, which I assume have the other recommendations. I think Ms. Crosby had a question for you. Yes, Ms. Case, I've been just a little confused. I just want to clarify, because you've been before us now several times. Are you representing the Neighborhood Association, or just these, as I count because of the same people at one address, five people? I represent the people listed on that letter. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, Mr. Sennett. Just curious quickly, have you looked at the ramifications? Have you all looked at any of the other temporary structures in town and also want to bring pictures of those forward? Or are you just looking at this one particular location? Well, we have assumed, and in speaking with Dewey Crow, that he has reviewed the structures in town that have applied for 10 applications within the past few years. And based on our conversations with him, it might be a more appropriate question for him. But under his assessment of the situation, the proposed tax amendment would only affect maybe 5% of those 10 applications across town. We're just using the Carrick House as a paradigm. It's an example of the current problem that's directly affecting my clients. So that's the temporary structure that brought this to our attention and brought it to the council's attention initially. So I would assume that the more detailed examination of the impact would be done by legal and building inspection who have apparently done that analysis and determined that the definition needs to be in the zoning ordinance. Well, obviously your main concern is just this single property, but any of your proposed language in our Texas Amendment would affect every property in Fayette County. That's why I asked if you looked at any other specific properties, would you answer it? Thank you. Is that not a question? No. Thank you, Ms. Case. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. I think next to the list is Steve Hobbs. We'll have three minutes. Three. Hello, my name is Steve Hobbs, and I represent Lexington Magic Carpets. We do an annual tent sale at the Fayette Mall every year. approximately 31 days, sometimes an extra week or two. And the change in the ordinance doesn't really affect me too much, but I think that to limit the amount of time that you can do a tent sale to 60 days, I don't think that would work for the rest of the businesses out there because I know that the mall in particular, they have different events every year. Some malls have a Halloween tent. We do a sale every year. Sometimes they have fire department events. Sometimes they have hot tub show. So if you limit that use there 60 to 180 days, then say I'm there for 30 days, then you've only got like 30 more days. And so that's hardly any room for the next guy. And I think that right now with the economy the way that it is, I think that a lot of businesses are trying to kind of do whatever they can to keep going, you know. So, you know, Fayette Mall is a big taxpayer. You know, a lot of businesses in there. So, like I said, it doesn't affect me so much, but I think it would be a good idea to, you know, have it so that I think they're zoned, what? B1, I think it is. And if you had an exception to the rule for that particular zone or for a particular shopping center, I think that'd be a good thing. Okay. That'll be it. Thank you very much. And Alan Stein. And Bert Shockley is next. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Three minutes is very easy for me to do. You know I can only go for a minute and a half. A couple of things to consider. I'm Alan Stein, President of the Lexington Legends. In consideration of this text amendment, just a couple of thoughts and considerations for you to recognize that the text amendment itself may have overarching ramifications for multiple businesses in our community. I will speak to you only about the potential ramifications at Applebee's Park. As regards a temporary fixture rather than a permanent one, In many cases, particularly at Applebee's Park, a permanent fixture would not be appropriate. The flexibility that we have by having temporary fixtures at Applebee's Park gives us the opportunity to be viable in our business model. And replacing those with a permanent fixture was really not an opportunity that we could consider. I would tell you also that temporary takes on different forms. And at Applebee's Park, for example, the 180-day criteria does not work for us. We would have to dismantle basically in mid-season for our operation, which runs from the 1st of May until, in many cases, the middle of November. So the 180-day concern would not work for us. And we would then have to deal with the integrity of our structures by taking them up and down within the concept of this new text amendments. Another quick consideration is that not all of these properties that would be affected by the text amendment are equal. For example, our temporary structures at Applebee's Park are not visible by the neighborhoods. in most cases, do not have any impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, and indeed, without getting philosophical about it, are on private property. Having to take up and down those facilities not only is onerous to us, but we believe infringes on our ability to operate the business as we deem to be most appropriate for our business. I see my time is up. I would be more than happy to answer any questions that you might have. Any questions for Mr. Stein? Mr. Stein, do you happen to know what zone designation applicable is? I believe we are. I think the entire property has been rezoned to B3. Okay, thank you. Thank you Mr. Stott. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shockley, Bart Shockley and next will be Joe Ellis. Good afternoon my name is Bart Shockley I'm a representative of Paul Miller Ford Mazda here in Lexington Kentucky. Paul Miller Ford's been serving the automotive needs of Central Kentucky since 1953. We're here to say that we object the amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding temporary structures. Tents are sometimes a big portion of our business and especially during the summer months and a lot of these tent cells that we have on our lots are mandated by the manufacturers as part of their national advertising programs. And I'm sure as you're aware that the automotive industry is struggling right now and for some reason if we were unable to mirror our advertising and business efforts to what the manufacturer and the national advertising is doing, we feel that it would be a detriment to our business model as well and that it would have an adverse effect on our profitability. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you Mr. Shockley. Joe Ellis. Mr. Chair, I am Doug Martin. I'm here appearing on behalf of Joe Ellis and Sally Doherty and myself. Mr. Ellis and Ms. Doherty have seated me their time, so I guess I would request six minutes. Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I am Doug Martin, and Richard Murphy and I represent Sunshine Growth Shops and Thoroughbred Energy, who is the landlord for Sunshine Growth Shops. Joe Ellis and Sally Daugherty from Sunshine Growth Shops are here with me today. Sunshine Growth Shop is a central Kentucky business which has three locations in Lexington. Two of the locations operate about eight months a year. The third location operates about three months, but that same location is later used by others for sale of fruits and vegetables and later for Christmas treats. We hope you agree that we help to make Lexington beautiful every spring. We don't have any choice about selling outdoors. We have to sell outdoors, otherwise our flowers would die. We understand that the current controversy relates to an entirely different business in downtown Lexington. We have been told that this proposal was not intended to regulate seasonal outdoor sales, such as flowers, fruits, and vegetables, and Christmas trees. However, the current draft does regulate these businesses. We feel this would be a tremendous hardship, especially during difficult economic times for our small business. First, as mentioned above, two of our locations are open more than six months a year. Second, it would be very expensive in terms of money and time to have to apply for conditional use for each location. It is important to remember that we are already regulated through the zoning process. In the past year, Sunshine Growth Shop has amended two development plans at its locations in order to specifically allow seasonal sales. We thought we had dealt with these issues when we amended these two development plans. We feel the ordinance can be made more specific in one of the following ways. First, specifically exempt seasonal outdoor sales from the operation of the ordinance. Second, specify that the regulation applies only to H-1 zone. We understand that this controversy arose over aesthetic or compatibility issues in the H-1 zone. The ordinance could specify that any structure erected more than 180 days in an H-1 zone must receive Board of Architectural Review approval. As you know, the Board of Architectural Review is the agency which deals directly with aesthetics and compatibility in the H-1 zone. Third, the ordinance could exempt temporary structures less than a particular size, for example, 144 square feet, which is the approximate size of a 12 by 12 temporary building. In summary, we have been through the regulatory process twice this year and do not feel that any further regulation is needed for our small business. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Are there any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Doug Martin. Oh, I'm sorry. Greena Wiseman. Which is at the clock for six minutes. Thank you. I'm Rena Wiseman. I'm here for GCL Properties, Jerry Lundergan, Allison Lundergan, and the family that own the Carrick House. We were here last month. I think you know our interest in this. And I think it's pretty clear that the Carrick House is not just the paradigm for this text amendment. the bull's eye on the target that has been painted on us. And we very much oppose this text amendment. We want to go through some things in response to what's been said today. First of all, I think from what you've seen just a little bit is temporary structures are important to many types of businesses, not just our business. You've heard car dealerships, the ballpark, there are restaurants. In your packet we have photos of tents that are up year-round at places like the Atomic Cafe, temporary structure at sales, the garden shops, car wash. and as that demonstrates, this is not just because somebody is discouraged from building a permanent structure. It's because the nature of their business is such that it is appropriate to have a temporary structure. Now, one other thing from the previous speaker, what you're also going to start hearing is people coming up and saying, well, but mine's different than Carrick House, so let's do this exception and let's do this exception. Again, this cannot be viewed, and I hope the Council does not view this, as a way to come up with a regulation that only affects the Carrick House. That's not appropriate use of your legislative authority. This property has followed the rules. We're a business property, a business in a business property, on a street that has business zones. We're there as a banquet facility, which is a permitted use in your B-1 zone, based on a text amendment that this government passed that was filed by the previous owner of Carrick House in order to convert it into a banquet facility. And that definition in your zoning ordinance says, this use may also include as an accessory use events conducted outside the main building and tents or other temporary facilities subject to the issuance of a permit by building inspection. So it was recognized when you passed this that one way to encourage the preservation of older residential buildings or businesses that we wanted to preserve was to allow them to be put to use as a banquet facility, and that part and parcel of that was the ability to have a tent or temporary facility. And many times it is necessary to go beyond the 180 days. these are completely arbitrary numbers that you have been presented with. For some reason, a temporary structure is appropriate for 60 days without anybody saying anything. But if it's between 60 and 180 days, we need to go through an adjudicatory hearing before the Board of Adjustment to determine now that it's suddenly inappropriate. And it is an inconvenience to these businesses to come back year after year. And what will happen is the ones that get approved, nobody comes. The ones that get disapproved, the room is filled. There's no standards, no criteria for this. It's just an arbitrary number of days. So this is something that we think, again, you need to be careful because it is being brought up by a very small group who do not like the care cast. Everybody was very happy that we renovated the Carrick House and that it's successful. But now there are some that don't like the greenhouse. That is a temporary structure. It can be removed. We followed the rules. We have continued to follow the rules. What we're upset about is that now that we've spent all this money and we're going to pay our taxes, we're assessed at over $2 million, so I don't think the government's going to not get their benefit from this as well as the other taxes. Now that we've done this, the rules are going to be changed, and we have not heard what the harm is from our temporary facility that's there. This ordinance has also not addressed the agricultural zones. They're not mentioned in this at all. That raises the question, is the intention to totally prohibit temporary structures and tents in the agricultural zone? We don't know because they've just been left out. Now if there is an intent to prohibit them or restrict them, there are many activities, many farms that often use tents for fundraisers and the like throughout Fayette County. And you've been to those and you're aware of those. Are we going to no longer allow those? We represent Keeneland and Keeneland has asked me to tell you today that they've got concerns about this amendment. They're getting ready to undergo a master plan, and part of that plan will probably involve the use of some temporary structures to give them the same sort of flexibility you've heard talked about. How will this affect their plans? We don't know. It's not clear. And why would that be a concern? So Keeneland would ask you to slow down and look at this as well because they have a problem with it. And then lastly, back to the Carrick House. What you're hearing is this is the people don't want, a few people want you to change the entire ordinance for this one property. And if you're going to start exempting other properties to get to us then we again as I indicated last time are going to have to take whatever action we have to. This is very important to our business. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Wiseman. Are there any questions? Marina Wiseman. Oh, I forgot to mention there are letters in your packet, letters of support, as I did. So we did have letters from Fox Hill, which is a neighbor, Lexington Traditional Magnet School, the Gratz Park Inn, Marathon Food Mart. Some of those folks are here today as well as Clean Sweep Wash. And they're all in the hand that you gave us. So we want you to understand that there are a lot of people who like the Carrick House and who like the Green House. Thank you very much. Amjad Abu Hanik. I hope I got that right. Good. My name is Amjad Abu Hanik. We own and operate the Marathon Food Mart, the gas station at 300 North Martin Luther King. I've been there in the neighborhood for about 10 years and I'm very familiar with it. I've seen when they first came and put the and the greenhouse next to it. And I feel it's really a good thing that the neighborhood have and bring a lot of people to the downtown and the historical area. And I feel that there is no problem with me having them as a neighbor. I think they're encouraging us and helping us as a business owner to see a lot of people coming to the neighborhood. And I don't think there is any harm. I don't see any harm by them being in that neighborhood and being next to us. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Allison Lunderman, and I'm sorry I can't read the last name. All right. Ken Littrell. Yes, sir. I'm Ken Littrell, small business owner, Clean Sweep Car Wash. And we have two locations, but specifically our location on Richmond Road, we have a small tent that we use for detailing our vehicles in. And it's the sort of thing that we use it. Helps out in the summertime, provides shade, keeps the surface of the cars cooler. It was very handy even today as it was raining, and we're still able to do detailing, carpet shampoos, and interior work on vehicles. Obviously, this amendment has come about as a result of one situation with the Carrick House and the tent located there. And I would just encourage you to, whatever it takes to resolve that conflict, that we would not try to impact every other business in town as a result of it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions? John Morgan. All right. Anybody else that didn't get on the list? All right. Good afternoon. My name is Clark Gase, and I'm here with the downtown residents also. So I just wanted to add a couple of things in support of the Texas Amendment. The city council recognized the problem during a zone change hearing this summer when the owners of the Carrick House applied to change the zoning of a parcel located behind that property to be one. The neighbors objected to the extent that they requested a restriction on the zone change that would prevent the temporary structure from being erected on that parcel. an attempt to avoid a cycle currently underway with respect to the existing temporary structure on the Carrick House parcel. Several council members expressed concern with the ability of a property owner to take advantage of the current loophole in the law that would allow them to continue use of a temporary structure ad infinitum, and thereby avoid design, planning, and review process applicable to permanent structures. But at the same time, these council members expressed their beliefs that this problem should be dealt with through an amendment to our zoning law and not by ad hoc zoning restriction directed to one property owner. another important point is that the language concerning conditional uses in the amendment which would require the board of adjustment approval could be modified to include temporary structures designed for use or occupancy for either a continuous period of 61 to 180 days in any calendar year or multiple periods each of less than 30 days that aggregate to a total of more than 120 calendar days but less than 180 calendar days in a calendar year. This suggested language could help to alleviate the problem that could be encountered in the circumstance that multiple entities seeking to utilize a temporary structure on a piece of property at various discrete times during the course of a year. suggested way to modify the language so that it does not affect all of the business owners who have expressed concerns with a broad stroke language is to exclude seasonal uses of temporary structures from the definition of temporary structure. And one might also consider exempting the use of temporary structure to make an otherwise permanent structure usable for the whole year. We support this text amendment because if carefully considered and narrowly addressed to the problem at hand. We believe it would lead to a more carefully considered development of our city, and because we do not believe that it will lead to any of the parade of horribles that some suggest. And one final, very important point is the fact that with the narrow tailored, it can be very specific, and it can help in the fabric of downtown. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, anybody else? All right, if not, I'll turn it back to the committee. Any more comments from the Senate? Thank you, Chair. Dewey, can you come back up to the mic for a second? It was stated earlier that only about 5% of the people who have temporary structures will be affected. Of the 76 people that you mailed letters to, how many would be affected by the proposed changes to the current law? I don't have any specific information directly on that. I did make a comparison by the individuals that contacted us directly in regards to the letter that was sent out, that the best as I could tell, the ones we had talked to, only about 5% of those would probably have a problem. Again, that's of the ones that contacted us with issues and had questions about what the amendments would do. In most of the cases, the 60-day limit was workable for the individuals that I spoke to directly and that some of my staff spoke to. There were some, obviously, that would not work for them and would become an issue that the 60 days would be too limiting on what they usually do in the way of use of temporary structures. particularly where you have one lot or one location where you tend to use multiple uses throughout the year. Say early in the spring you'll have the plant sales, then they will become the firework sales in the summer, which then are the produce sales in the fall, and ultimately Christmas tree sales in the holiday season. And total together, those would probably exceed the 60-day limit in most cases, which would present a problem for that particular location. But, again, most of them I spoke to, and the 5% figure is kind of what we came up with of those that called in, and that is by no means the majority of the 76 that we sent notices to. How often is this issue brought to your department's attention, or how often does this become an issue where the structures are staying up longer than a lot of time that you have to go back out and enforce our current law? Well, in the case of something that's more than six months, I don't recall in the previous having an issue where one was up that amount of time and that was kept up beyond that that caused a problem. We have them ever so often we'll have an issue where we've issued a certificate of occupancy that limits someone to two weeks, four weeks, or a specific amount of time, and that's based on what they're telling us they're going to have it there, that we'll get notified that it's been there longer than what they permitted it for. We'll go out and notify them. But if they're within that 180-day period, they can simply request an extension of that and still be in compliance and keep the temporary structure up until they reach a maximum of 180 under the building code. So once again, you don't recall ever having this issue? I don't ever recall an issue where we had a structure that was routinely kept up, 180 removed, put back up, and that type of cycle. I'm not saying that that's not been done. I personally do not recall one recently. Okay. And then you said most people would just reapply to extend their permit beyond the 30, 60 days. Is that an automatic extension that your department grants, or do they have to go through a different process? Or if they want to keep a structure up longer than 30, 60 days from what they originally planned, do you automatically grant those extensions? We normally would grant that unless there's some outstanding reason that it couldn't be done. Typically, if someone has come in and says, well, we're going to put this temporary structure up for this use for 30 days, they get close to the 30. They come back and say, well, we're going to be able to keep it up another 30, and they request that permission, we would extend that. Yeah, had there been any cases? Unless there was an outstanding reason not to. Any cases that you've denied the extension? None come to my mind directly. Again, I would have to talk to staff if they've, about that. But normally we would not deny it unless there's some overriding public safety issue or something that had come to arisen in regard to that particular structure. Because again, as the building code allows, you can have it for 180 days. They go through an approval process when they first put it up. The structure is reviewed for compliance for fire safety, for exiting. All public safety issues are vetted out and looked at. The fire marshal goes through these structures, looks at them. They have to be a fire retardant material. There's a whole, we put them through a whole gamut of approvals to ensure that it's safety for the public. Once that's done and it's in place, merely extending their time period, as long as it doesn't exceed the 180 is not usually a problem. It would just require them to request that that time be extended. The Kentucky Building Code grants us the authority to extend it. That even grants us the authority to extend beyond 180 days for good cause, which is something we would, I don't ever recall doing and generally would not do. And you have not granted anything beyond 180 days in Fayette County? To my knowledge, we have never granted a continuous structure, a temporary structure, to be up more than 180 days. Very good. And have you had any chance to review the current building inspection language in terms of the word temporary with our state building office? Do they see any issues on how we're currently managing our temporary structure permits? In a brief conversation with the state office, they have indicated they don't see any issues with how we're currently enforcing that. We, in fact, reviewed how we were addressing the current situation over on Limestone with them as to how we should go at that. They agreed with how we had handled that situation. They thought that was a reasonable way to handle it. The building code does not give a specific time period for a break. In fact, it specifically states that we can't issue a permit or an approval for more than 180 days. it does not mention that the structure has to even be torn down or removed. So has that structure on North Limestone violated any of our current building codes? No, sir. I do not believe it has. Thank you, sir. Ms. Hanson. Dewey, I have a question. I know when you build a permanent structure on, I guess, any property, The size of that structure has to be a certain percentage of the size of the existing structure, like an addition or garage. So I was just wondering if there's any, as far as a temporary structure, if the size, is there restrictions on the size? The restrictions you would have with a temporary structure would be what you physically can fit within the zoning ordinance restrictions for setbacks on a particular lot. If you physically can't get the structure on the lot and comply with the zoning setback requirements, then it would not be allowed. So if you have a small lawn, you can put a huge tent on it? As long as it's in compliance with the zoning setbacks and the particular use that it's being put to, yes. Because I, you know, not to pick on the Carrick House by no means, but I'm just thinking there's a huge difference between Applebee's Park, Keeneland, and the Carrick House if they put... Again, a temporary structure is not going to be considered for things such as percent of yard and those type things. It's a temporary structure. It's by definition temporary. It's going to be theoretically removed within a certain amount of time. When you go to a permanent structure, some of those things come into play and you would have to meet those types of requirements with a permanent structure. Again, it's a time, what makes something a temporary structure is the time under the building code, 180 days or less identifies it as a temporary structure. A tent can be a permanent structure. If it's put up in compliance with the zoning code, in compliance with all the other components of the building code that would regulate the type of structure it is, whether it's a tent structure, temporary tent structure, temporary frame structure. There are numerous types of temporary structures, and they can become permanent if they comply with all the other requirements of the zoning ordinance and the building code. And we do have some of those, and in fact, some of these that were mentioned, the folks mentioned today are in fact actually permanent structures and have been approved as such, although they look the same as some of the temporary structures. Yes. Mr. Blavitt. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Salley, could you come up for just a moment? I'm interested to know a slightly different take on this. Let's pretend the Carrick House example for a moment, let's pretend that was a permanent structure. What process would they have had to go through to be allowed to do a permanent structure there? Just a 30,000-foot view. I believe that it would have had two reviews, probably one by the staff of the historic preservation office, and then secondly, a review by the Division of Billing and Inspection as well. If there were variances needed then, it would have probably been referred to our office at some point for a trip to the Board of Adjustment. Okay. The reason I'm asking is I almost wonder aloud if we're attacking this from the wrong direction. uncovered some difficulties with the temporary structure definition, but really what we're dealing with here is a permanent structure. So I wonder if maybe we need to look at it backwards. Instead of declaring something to be temporary if it's 180 days or less, we declare it to be permanent if it's over 180 days, and that would trigger the necessary reviews. Because the real problem here is not that they've done something wrong or whatever, it's that this structure falls in an area of our law that doesn't have any coverage. It's neither temporary nor permanent and therefore there's been no review There's been no chance for the neighbors to have a say in whether it should be there forever or not So that's why I was asking so ahead chair things Do I hear any motions? Well, I will say that in Talking to miss James who is a permanent chair of this committee or the chair now She said that she would be willing to appoint a committee to look at the concerns of the organizations and businesses that have been here today and to work on the text amendment based on that testimony today and come back at appropriate time to present that if that's an agreement with the committee. If not, then I hope somebody comes up with a motion. Is everybody in agreement with Mrs. James' suggestion? Do I hear a nod? Yes or no? All those in favor of her suggestion? Yes. What will be the task of the committee? I mean, what's the mission? To look at the single property or to look at the whole ordinance? Look at the whole ordinance. That's what she had explained to me in an e-mail. look at the whole ordinance based on the testimony that was given here today. For the first time, we have heard testimony from other people who have temporary structures or tents or whatever they may be, and this is the first time we've heard that. And I think that she was hoping that by appointing a committee to look at the whole ordinance and come up with something or whatever their suggestion might be at the next meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee. Okay, well, I mean, I think based on the testimony we heard today, there's nothing wrong with the current ordinance and the people that are going through temporary structures except for one property. I mean, I'm not sure looking at the whole ordinance once again will give us a new result. Well, you know, that's fine with me. I'm just waiting if somebody wants to make a motion or whether we'll follow the suggestion of Ms. James. That's all. I just wanted to make a comment, I guess, as to what I'm feeling here. While I regret the fact that the structure is there, the fact is it is there, bought and paid for. and to target something because technology has allowed us to do things in 2008 or in the 21st century that the present ordinances and zoning matters didn't think about, I guess, previously. Now I'll give another example, and that was the flashing billboard on Nicholasville Road. that everybody got up in arms about, and which I considered a technological marvel more than flashing, and somewhat unfair in that Rupp Arena is allowed to scroll all types of things across their building, and they could allow them to do that, and this wasn't. And we found that with those types of billboards, they're all over the country now and we're just a little bit behind the times. In this case, to have some kind of special targeted text amendment or ordinance to disturb something that somebody has adhered to all of our rules and regulations it just doesn't sit right with me. It's a fairness issue as far as I'm concerned. Thank you. Thank you. Well, if I don't hear a motion, all I can do as the Chairman is to make the recommendation to Ms. James based on what she had emailed me for her to appoint a committee and to see if they can come up with a fair ordinance based on the testimony that was here today. And I'm sure she's listening at home because she is sick. But if no one else comes up with an ordinance, I will just pass that on to her. And I assume that everyone would be in agreement on this. If not, please let me know. All right, we'll do it. We'll hand it that way. And I don't know when she'll be ready to come back with something, whether she'll be ready whether she will be ready at the next meeting. When is the next meeting? That's what we're doing. Does anybody know? I don't know if there's one in December or not. But anyway, there'll be plenty of notice of it, and whether the committee would be prepared at that time to come up with some recommendations. I'll have to ask Ms. James, and I'm sure that she'll notify the key people that were here today and when the meeting's going to be and whether they'll have a recommendation. So thank you all for coming and giving your time to speak to this subject. and we will now go on to the next item on our agenda. The next item has to do with boards and commissions, which was brought up by Councilman Myers. Councilman Myers is not here today. Yes. I'll report out on that if I might. You have in your packet starting on page 10, a memorandum from Councilmember Myers to Councilmember James, who's the chair of Intergovernmental, as to the work that was done and the recommendations that have come out of the multiple meetings that took place. The council members involved were myself, Dr. Blues, Councilmember Crosby, Councilmember Ellinger, and Councilmember Stenet. And as is indicated in the memorandum, we had seven meetings, all with the citizen's advocate, Ms. Beck. And we worked our way through primarily two things. And if you will follow up, there's a policy and procedure manual. which is somewhat simplistic in nature but which we wordsmith to death, I might say. And with the help of our English professor that was able to give us a lot of help on that. and as you can see it is voluminous it goes I'm trying to reach the end of it so I can get over to the appendix terms and definitions which pretty much fills in so you're able to read and understand what's in the previous 50 pages or so anyway we have the recommendations I'm not going to read them all necessarily. I want everybody to have the opportunity to read these and study this and they may be able to comment at the next meeting about it. The recommendations have been made, though, and we've done our work, and we think they are good recommendations and are accepted wholeheartedly by the citizen's advocate. Do you want to make a motion? I make a motion to give everybody the opportunity to read this, and we will talk about this again and take some action at the next intergovernmental meeting. Second. Aye. A motion and second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Okay, that takes care of the items that are on the agenda. Ms. Beck, I think because Mr. Myers is not here, Mr. Ellinger did not come and our Chair is not here today that it was a recommendation that this be postponed to the next meeting. That's fine. That's fine. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. If you'll turn to the back page, are there any of the items that are there that you want to bring up to be taken off? Well, the Boards and Commissions will be coming up next time. Okay if I hear none, do I hear a motion to adjourn? Thank you.