I'm Tim Quarry and I'm the urban forester with the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government. And we are on South Hanover looking at some of the damage that was caused from the ice storm. This is probably one of the hardest hit areas of town. The downtown has some of the most mature trees in Lexington and so therefore we saw extensive David, Barbara, you're in the crowd. Can we meet without a quorum? All right, let's meet. We need to get this show on the road. Today's March the 17th and this is the planning committee of the council and we will go ahead and get started. And I know we have one more council member who is in route. Our first item, I believe, is going to be very brief. It is the electrical inspector fee schedule update and Mr. Dewey Crow from building inspection has a very brief, I understand, comment. Yes, we have met with Mr. Jones of Commonwealth Inspection Bureau and his attorney, Mr. Vic Roy. They presented some additional information to us and as a consequence of that, we requested some additional information from them. They're going to provide that shortly and hopefully we will bring a complete recommendation back to this committee at the next meeting. Okay, in April? In April, yes. Okay, very good. Thank you very much, appreciate it. The next item on our agenda, there are two items which Council Member Henson put into committee number two, time limits on building permits and number three, increased fines on zoning slash building permit violations and Council Member Henson, are you, where are you? She's not here, but she knows how to bring the state people in. One is among us and I presume that he will want to make comments eventually, is Commissioner Richard Maloney from the State, let's see, hang on, State Department of Housing, Building and Construction, is that right? So shall we, and I know you have to get out of here pretty quickly, we have a legal, can we take just a minute to hear from David Barbary on the legal memo that's in the packet and then we'll hear from our State Commissioner. Welcome. Welcome. Do you have any comments on the memo? Summary, comment, is there something that needs to be explained on it? I tried to be concise. I just wondered if you, you were very concise, thank you very much, and I think this is a very confusing area because people get hung up on what you can and can't do with various things. I was just talking to Council Member Lawless about doing some things that are going to come to you all at a future point in time as a council with respect to having, they're not technically, well they are technically additional penalties, but they're provided for in the building code where if someone does not have the appropriate permit, they would be subject to essentially a double fine or a $500 minimum fine. So that's something you can do in the building code that's allowable and that's something that's actually going to come to you all as a proposal at a future point in time. But the gist of the legal opinion was your options are limited because of the comprehensive scope of both the building code and the zoning code with respect to things that are already covered in those two areas with respect to what you all would be able to do in addition to that as a local form of regulation. The two questions you answered just for the public were can the LFUCG place a time limit on the completion of a permitted project and can the LFUCG adopt increased fines or penalties for zoning or building permit violations? Council Member Henson, these are two of the three issues you had put in committee and I said you sure know how to get the big state people here. So is there any question from David before we hear from Commissioner Maloney? No? All right. Richard Maloney, welcome. Thank you. And I just want to commend you guys for all the hard work you all have done for the last year and a half and sure miss you. But I do have some, a lot of questions been asked about what we can do, what we can't do and it's great to work with you guys. And one thing is on the fines on permits, you can do fine, fine, if they have a permit and it's not done right, you can fine what it is, or if they built a building and didn't have a permit, you can fine them and how it works is you will fine them what their permit was and you can double it. So if they go out and build a garage and didn't have a permit, they have to pay for the permit fee and whatever that fee will be doubled. That's what the state will allow you all to do. And the other issue is on how long a building can be on expiration. As you know, it's got 180 days, what a permit's good for and if they do not do anything, then you all will take the nuisance law, come in and then you will. But if they are doing some kind of work and that's something that the building code will be able to document to prove that that has been done, then it can extend that to another 180 days. But some of the issues coming up, what is considered work and what is not considered work and what I've asked you guys, if you want to, is get a, put it in, get you a committee put together. I know Kevin said he loves committees and I think he would be excellent in having to chair this committee. What I would propose is you all come up with what you consider is work and what you consider not work. And when you all put that together, please bring it down to the state and I will take it to my board and we will review and if it ends up being something we can do, then we'll take it on over to the LRC, adopt that as a code and that will be put in our code. And I know in other cities have the same problem, I think Orangeburg or Bowling Green, one of those cities are working on that. So this is a good opportunity that you all can bring those two together and come up with some proposal because I'm like you, you put a nail in and then put another permit on it. Why don't you put two nails in or something that will be obeyed. So I ask that if you could come up with some idea of what is work and what is not work, then we'll be glad to help you all on that. So you're suggesting if we had a subcommittee that would work maybe with law and building inspection to put that together and then bring it to you. And bring it to us and we'll be and I'll be glad to put it to the board and then if it passes then it will go to LRC and then they will vote on it and then it would be put into a code if it passes. Because I know one of the worst offenders in the 4th District would get to the end of the permit period, go out and hammer a few times and then go back and get the permit. And this has gone on for years. That's something that you all could try to sit in, what you consider work and what, but I would recommend that you do put some builders on there because my board has a lot of builders that you want to be sure that the builders get on the same board. Good idea. I think there are a few questions for you. Council Member Lawless. Thank you so much, Commissioner, for gracing us with your presence today. I've been chasing this funds for building without a permit for a year, as you know, because we've had many conversations about it. And I had asked for a draft ordinance and we went back and forth and George Mann sent an email saying that since KBC and KRC, the commercial and residential codes, aren't consistent on the minimum fine of $500. It's not listed in the commercial, but it is in the residential. And that you all were looking at changing that and it had to be reviewed. It looks like it was withdrawn in 9908 and was refiled. And Mr. Mann said on March 3rd that it had not changed, but it had to be reviewed by LRC and he was going to include that in the package of code changes going to LRC within the next week, which would have been. So, do you know where that is? Because if it's about to change, we would want our ordinance to be in alignment with whatever changes are made. We'll probably, we'll take it to LRC next week. I think they meet next week and once that changes, we will be, we will inform everybody across the state that there's change that we're going to make. Because we have a draft of an ordinance ready to go that would be in alignment with those changes. Yeah, we would. So, as soon as you do that, we can pull the trigger on our ordinance. The one thing I did want to say, which we're talking about on permits, folks that don't get permits. Right. We are really going out and forcing that across the state because of the industry, as you know right now, it's the down business, it's down time, but you've got a lot of people that are beating the system and you've got a lot of people that are doing it right. And that's why we encourage everyone in every part of this to go out and get the folks that are going out there and getting illegal buildings up there without permits. And that's why we ask that you do go after them, find them and everything. So, we have stepped ours up and we are finding, and we're finding a lot of that across the state. And that's what the economy does. And the other issue along here is demolition without a permit, but that's not out of your section. So, we need to pursue that at some point. I know our planning calendar is full, but I'm also very interested in looking at that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is this ordinance, draft ordinance, something that you have, David? I hadn't heard about that until just now and it's not in our packet. So, can you get us that or is it something you're working on? We have been working with building inspection because they had made a mutual request along with the council member for that. And there's a complication simply because there are other things added on that naturally need to take place anyway from building inspection. So, I think we're going to bifurcate the two issues and present a separate ordinance on. And the assumption that I told Commissioner or Council Member Lawless was that we're going to assume the $500 change is going to take place. So, I think what we will send you all is the draft that has the $500 minimum amount in both the residential and the commercial property code. And so then question two, which Council Member Henson put into committee, then that could be doubled under the current law. Is that correct? The existing building code allows you all as a discretionary measure to implement double fines. But in some instances, under the residential code in particular right now, it has to be a $500 minimum no matter what. So, on the residential end, the minimum fine is going to be, and it's technically it's an additional building permit or additional penalty for not having pulled the permit. So, what would happen is when they are caught not having the permit, they would have to pay the original fee that they did not pay. They would have to pay double that fee if it wasn't $500 more. If it was less than $500, they would have to pay the original fee plus $500. Okay. To meet the minimum. Right. Okay. All right. Very good. Did you have anything else? No? Council Member Gray, I mean Vice Mayor Gray. Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is really just a point of information and I may have missed it. Did Mr. Maloney tell us who he is and where he's from in order to demonstrate credibility? Okay. Okay. I'm so sorry. All right. Just wanted to make sure that our viewing audience knew why he's here. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Henson. Hi, Mr. Maloney. Thank you for coming. I do have one question for you. As it pertains to a building permit, does the state require a permit to put up fencing? Put up what now? Fencing. In a single residential? We do not. And does it, I mean, does it depend upon the size or is it? Commercially, it will depend on size on commercial, but on a single residential, no. Okay. Because the reason I put this into committee was actually over a fence that had taken two or three years to go up and lots of other complaints too similar. So in that case, we could impose our own penalties. That's what I was going to bring up. I talked to Council Member Lawless and we discussed that as long as in what is written in your ordinances, as long as it doesn't have anything to do with the state, you can put the fines or whatever you want on that. Okay. And on single residential, fencing is not having, and you all do have a fencing permit. You may want to look and see what is attached, if it is attached to residential. I think LFUCG building inspection does require a permit for fencing, but it is not required by the state. No. Not in single residential families. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Along with the fencing, things like decks also are local ordinances rather than state, so we can do whatever we want with that. Was that, was that a question? Oh, you answered it. Thank you. Do other Council Members have questions? Commissioner Maloney suggested we put together a committee, which I think is a really good idea. And I asked Kevin to chair it. And he has asked Kevin to chair it. But it seems to me that we could, this committee could, if someone makes the motion, could establish an ad hoc committee with some Council Members, building inspection, and some builders to just quickly knock this out, rather than going into a full-blown task force. Well, being the chair, I would ask, what was your motion again, Council Member Blues? Ad hoc. Without going into a full-blown task force, that we could appoint a committee of Council Members, builders, participation of building inspection and law to knock this out expeditiously. And I think, I think it's also recommended that Council Member Stinnett chair this committee. So moved. We have a motion on the floor. And the point of the committee would be to put together some, a list of things that constitute real work. And would, would you want a list of things that don't constitute real work? I think I'll just go with, with what, real work, and I would also do both, just in case, so we can use that example when we, when you bring it to the Board to show these are the kind of things that are going on that they consider is work that has been allowed to do 180 days. We don't consider this being real work. So I think it'd be a lot easier to show the ones that you all see that are not real work will probably be a better selling point. Okay. Okay. Council Member Lawless, to the motion. Can that committee also look at taking the administrative hearing process that we now have in code enforcement, but we don't have in building inspection to the state at the same time to change that? And I know there, the group in Bowling Green is interested in doing that, but. Council Member Stinnett. This is actually not on the motion, but go ahead. Currently we do have a civil penalty process for zoning violations. It goes to the, any appeals of those are referred to the Infrastructure Hearing Board, and this is within the zoning ordinance, and we do use that for zoning violations. They also, in a zoning issue, also have the ability to appeal to the Board of Adjustment for any zoning. So there's a couple, there's three different avenues that they can go to rectify a zoning violation. They can either correct it and pay any fines, or we can take them to district court as well, or they can appeal that issue to the Board of Adjustment and seek relief through the board. I was talking about building inspection. That's, are you talking about building code issues? I'm talking about people who, when there are violations with, that have anything to do with building inspection. Your only recourse now is to take them to court. For building code issues, yes, we are. And that's what I'm speaking to, is building code issues. You're exactly correct. Okay, thank you. For building code issues, it is a district court. Right. And so, to better utilize our resources and have better enforcement, that needs to also go to the Richards folks to be changed, and I know that there are some other cities that are interested in having that change. So I was wondering if we could, since we're putting this committee together, deal with both issues. Well, this planning hasn't really heard that issue. I mean, it would be up to the group if we want to put a, tag it onto this, but we're talking right now about putting time limits on completion of projects. Could I say a couple words about that issue? Because there's a different legal issue that applies to that as well, which is why, in my opinion, they haven't done more of it than they're doing. We are not allowed to decriminalize criminal conduct at the state level. And the stuff in the building code, the penalties for it are criminal. And so, unless there's a change made to that statute that allows you to do the administrative boards, I don't think you're necessarily going to have the authority to issue administrative fines in lieu of a criminal citation. The reason we have not done more administrative board work in this area is because of that legal prohibition. I think it's in KRS 65.88, whatever the section is that creates the administrative hearing boards, there's a specific legal body of law, as well as it's articulated in the statute, that says you can't, in Fayette County, make something less than a crime when it's a crime everywhere else in the state. And the building code violations are, if you violate the building code, it is a crime. And that's the real legal issue with respect to that. I'll withdraw my request and continue my research on this. Okay, because I think it is an important issue, really important. Is there any other Councilmember comment on the motion? Discussion? Chair? Mr. Ellinger. Thank you. I have just a question. I understand the reason why you want to do it and try to get it moved throughout. It's my understanding is we only really have two options. We can either do a task force or do a subcommittee, and I may might ask our parliamentarian on that. So I'm trying to figure out. Well, I don't know. Can we do ad hoc? And how does that work? We've had ad hocs galore in the past. So that's not an issue? How does that work? The Chair can appoint an ad hoc. Okay, good. I'd like to hear that. Thank you. I think it could go quicker. No, I agree with that. I was just asking some questions. I will make sure that we can do that, and I'm glad that we can. Thank you. Okay, good. Would you like to serve if the motion passes? Let's see if the motion passes, and then we'll get some folks on it. Any other comments or questions? If not, all those in favor of the motion on the floor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, that motion passes. Richard Maloney, it's great to see you. Thank you very much. You'll be hearing from the Council. Thank you. I would just say at this point I'm going to need a couple of volunteers to serve on this ad hoc. I've got Councilmember Ellinger and Councilmember Lawless. And do I have one more? Councilmember Feigl? Thank you very much. You're declining. So we have... This is the defunding work. Yes. What's your question? Oh, you didn't volunteer for the task force, I mean the ad hoc? Are you withdrawing your volunteerism? Yes. So we have Councilmember Ellinger, Councilmember Feigl, and Councilmember Henson. Very good. So the three Councilmembers, and we'll ask Mr. Crow, Dewey, would you be willing to work with this group? And then we'll need someone from Law. Would that be David Barbary, please? And then I'll work with Paul to get a couple of builders represented on this ad hoc, and we'll get rolling. How's that sound? Okay. Very good. Thank you so much. And our next issue was put into committee by Councilmember James, the Heritage Tree Program, and I'll just give that to you for a minute to get us started. Thank you. And it will be extremely short because the tree board met last week, and we had a chance to talk a bit, and we've opted to not go the route of ordinance, and instead we are going to go just towards some type of either a resolution or just a recognition for the heritage trees for right now. So you can hold on to this ordinance if you want to. It may be forthcoming down the road, but I would just make the, if I need to make the motion to withdraw it from the planning committee at this time. Okay. There's a motion to withdraw. Did I hear a second from Councilmember Ellinger to withdraw the Heritage Tree Program? Any discussion? Is there a, obviously you've got some reason to not go the ordinance route. We just felt that we wanted to start off a bit more mild than an ordinance, and just a recognition program to see how it goes and to see how the process will work, and to graduate to a level of an ordinance, possibly or possibly not, just to see if a recognition or resolution gets the results that the tree board is searching for in honoring the heritage trees in Lexington. The, I'm sorry, without an ordinance, though, you wouldn't be able to protect a particular heritage tree generation to generation, I gather, or is that possible? No, you're absolutely right. You can't do protection of something without an ordinance. So it would be pretty much optional through a recognition or resolution program. Well, I would, you know, I hope that this works, but I, reading the ordinance, I thought it looked like a pretty effective and, you know, comprehensive sort of step to protect important trees. It is extremely comprehensive and a very good way to protect. And I think, I'm hoping the tree board will eventually get there. And I hope that you will see this ordinance forthcoming, asking for your consideration at a later point. I think we just feel like we need to start on a less, I don't know what the right word is, abrasive or aggressive in the beginning until we get the program established up and running, get kind of who's going to do what, and then be able to have a more, I'm having a really hard time with my adjectives today. I need a thesaurus. Well, you know, if Mark Twain said, if, you know, if the adjective is in doubt, leave it out. Hey, yeah, Mark Twain may be my reference a lot today. I hope we'll see it again. I do hope. I mean, I do support the ordinance and will continue to support the ordinance. But I am guided by my board at this time. And I do think that more conversation needs to happen on our board and we need to have as much support for an ordinance of all the tree huggers in the world, or at least that meet in the fifth floor conference room before we do something like this. So hold on to it. It will be forthcoming. Thanks. I think what you're suggesting is like we've done with Herbie, with Rosie, in terms of we don't mandate recycling to the public. We've taken a softer stand to try to pull people on board with recycling rather than saying every one of you has to recycle. And I like this approach, kind of a softer approach. And I know that in Austin, there are some huge heritage trees that are plaqued. You know, they have a recognition plaque. And I'm not, you know, I think once we have a few of those go up, it will send a message to other people who may want to do that. Well, it's interesting you brought up Austin because that is one of the cities we visited before as a group. And also that is they do phenomenal things with their trees there. They have a street tree maintenance program that probably takes care of their heritage trees as well. We don't have a very fully funded urban forestry. Urban forestry is within streets and roads. And a lot of times they're sharing resources. And we just haven't highlighted our urban forestry program and our tree program the way that we really need to in order to be able to support a program like this. Because if you are going to designate a tree and protect a tree, it's going to come down to who's going to have to pay for that forever and the maintenance and the pruning and all of that that has to happen. So we've got a lot to work on. Last week I mentioned to you all, you know, you should come to that tree board meeting because there are some really exciting things forthcoming with the stormwater fee and things like that or with the stormwater issues. Trees can play a very vital role. And our urban forestry could help to strengthen a lot of the things that we're doing. But right now it doesn't have the funding that it really needs to do this. So you may see a lot of things like this coming that are more cutbacks in those areas. And so maybe I would ask that this committee as well as just as the council as a whole that we look at our priorities and where do we, where do we, where will we end up having to pay more money later if we don't do some things in advance. So that was kind of a plug for trees. But that is a bigger picture to why a resolution will be presented rather than this ordinance. So the motion on the floor is to remove the Heritage Tree Program issue from this committee. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Our next issue in committee is the Courthouse Area Design Review Recommendations. Wish you could have a shorter name. But we have Billy Van Pelt here and you are the design review officer. And we have Mike Moiser and you're the chair, you're still the chair of the board. So welcome. And I know there are a couple of recommendations and Council Member Lawless is the shepherd for this issue, right? So do you have any comment before they get going? No. I just want to thank them for all their hard work and Mr. Moiser for all his chairing of so many things. But I fully support these changes. So welcome. Did you want to speak? You're a tag team today. I'll just be extremely brief and say that these are two recommendations that the Courthouse Area Design Review Board is considering so far. They're evaluating other recommendation on potential ordinance changes in the future. But these are the two that have been voted to forward to your committee so far. And the two being, number one, no demolition allowed until all administrative appeals are complete. That's correct. And number two, require roof inspections by the Division of Code Enforcement and the Division of Fire. That's right. Did you have some comments, Mike, at all before we take questions? I would just say that I think the process of going through the Centerpoint project enlightened us on some things that probably needed to be changed. The first one's just a matter of fairness and due process. But the second is we recognize that when problems develop with the buildings in our area they usually start with the roof and it doesn't make much sense if our staff can't get in there and look at it. So I think these are fairly simple and common sense measures. Okay. Can you, before we have questions, the email says that your board referred these two changes to the ordinance at your last public hearing. Can you remind us when that was? Last week. It was last week. Last week. So it was March of 2009. And the no demolition allowed until all administrative appeals are complete, does that have to do with the Section 27-6C, which is, it's the authorization permits for demolition? That's correct. And as the ordinance is now written, there's an administrative appeal to the Planning Commission. And that's the appeal we're talking about having been exhausted before the permits are issued. Okay. And roof inspections are, can you flesh that out a little of what and where? Well, presently the staff cannot inspect a roof of one of these buildings unless they happen to be on an adjacent building and look down at the roof. So the proposed change is really to allow the divisions that are charged with enforcement of the building maintenance code and fire protection to be able to get into the building and onto the roof. Okay. And that would be for any building in the boundary within the courthouse area? Yes. Okay. We have lots of questions. So, Council Member James. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you elaborate a little bit more about what you just said about getting into, this would require the inspector to get into the facility, the building, to check out the roof? Well, I think it's going to depend on the building. Some of these buildings you can access the roof from an external ladder or staircase. But in many cases, on the older buildings, the only way you can get to the roof is through some sort of a hatch that goes up through the building. Okay. So, similar to a residential code enforcement inspection, you have to be granted permission. That's correct. Somebody has to open the door and let you go in. Will the language in here be such that nothing can go forward unless someone opens the door and says you're allowed to go in? I'm trying to figure out where the teeth in it exist. Well, I mean, I think our thought as a board was that these divisions should have the right to go into the building to get onto the roof. So, if that's the only way to get to the roof, then obviously we think they ought to have the right to enter the building and get there. So, if there's a right to get into the building, is there a right for a person to refuse entry into the building? Presently there is, but we're suggesting that that be changed. Okay. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. I'm a little hung up on this requirement of roof inspection. At what point is that triggered? I mean, if you suspect that a roof might be bad, do you trigger this activity? Or is this when they come before you and ask to do something that is triggered? That's a very good question. Currently in the ordinance, inspections are required annually by code enforcement and fire anyway of the buildings within the overlay. There are 90 parcels in the design overlay zone. And since becoming Design Review Officer, I've asked the Division of Code Enforcement and Fire to inspect all those properties. And Code Enforcement and Fire have issued notices to anyone that needs to make a change and given them a time period to make that change. And they've gone back and re-inspected. So the thought of the board was, if we're inspecting the exterior of the building and interior of the building and we're not inspecting the roof, then it's really not a full-blown inspection. And the thought is, if everything to the eye on the exterior and interior of the building is okay, but your roof is faulty, then the rest of the inspection is sort of moot. Okay. Good to know. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me ask a question about the first proposed change. Would this cover, and I gather it wouldn't, court appeals? In other words, if you, and I'm not sure whether, you know, whether that's permitted. In other words, the appeal goes to the Planning Commission. Could it also go to, you know, to a court? I see what you're asking. This ordinance change would make sure that it goes through all the appropriate LFUCG appeals, but would not apply to appeals in the courts. And then, why not? As it stands now, any action that would be brought in circuit court to challenge a decision of the government, of the local government, you could apply to that court for a stay of the effect of that decision while the appeal is pending. But that's in the discretion of the trial court where you would bring that action. So we haven't moved into that at all. So this would protect the buildings up to the point of a court appeal if that were to occur? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. With reference to the second request, I think that Councilmember Beard has pretty much answered that, you know, that question. And I gather the intent here is to prevent guard against demolition by neglect. Yes. And the roof, obviously, of these buildings is the most sensitive portion of the exterior structure. Many of them are multi-story. You can't see the roof from the ground. And so we obviously want to try to protect those. And I gather then that in some cases you can't see the damage by an interior inspection. I mean, there might be deterioration that can't be seen from inside? Yes, that's often the case because the way that a lot of these older roofs are built, the water will transverse to a wall, for example, and go down. And you won't necessarily see the damage in the roof itself. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember Lawless. I may be wrong on this, but it's my understanding that depending on what's in the building and the size of the building, it doesn't always fall under the division of code enforcement, but sometimes building inspection. Should we include that when it's appropriate? That would be up to you. The way the ordinance is written, it falls to code enforcement and fire. A building inspection director is not here. We could certainly investigate that and clarify that for you, and I could report back to the chair. That's a great idea. I just want to make it as inclusive as possible while we're doing it. Will that be satisfactory? Okay. So you'll clarify that? Yes, I will clarify that and report to you. Okay, great. Councilmember Feigl. Thank you, Chair. I just have a question. You had mentioned earlier that sometimes if you do an interior inspection, it doesn't necessarily tell you what's on the roof, and yet you're asking for a law that says that it's okay for you to go inspect the roof. So if they let you in to do the interior inspection, are you being denied the right to go up on the roof? Well, I'm not doing these inspections, but code enforcement and fire are only going to inspect under the letter of the ordinance. So they would be conducting the inspection based on the current ordinance, and they wouldn't ask to go up on the roof unless it was required by the current ordinance. I think another point that we may have confused. think another point that we may have confused you about is depending on the zoning and the use of these buildings I believe some of these buildings fire code enforcement any of the regulatory agencies can already go inside those buildings and conduct inspections but within this overlay not all the buildings are zoned the same not all there are used the same and what we're asking is that the inspection that's required under our ordinance allow the roofs to be inspected I think I dare say there's probably 70 or 80 percent of the buildings in this zone they can already go into the inside because they're commercial or office building okay and so you're saying that they don't do the roof inspection just because it isn't required that's right okay and you're looking to have the Division of Code Enforcement and the fire department yes because presently that's what our ordinance that's those are the two agencies that are charged to do the inspection under this ordinance thank you are there other questions from council members Oh councilmember James thank you I just wonder what's the penalty now if if a person does not comply with this inspection this annual inspection that happens now if you're not able to do an annual inspection of one of the buildings within this area what happens to that building we haven't I haven't faced that issue I mean that either one of these agencies have they've had to go back multiple times in some cases to reach the owner but in in every case we have at some point gotten into the building is that do you know if that's laid out in the ordinance that if they're not if you're not able to inspect a building for whatever reason then this this is something happens well once again we haven't faced that issue but I could certainly do some research on it and get back to you yeah I'm not really asking if you face that I just wondered if the ordinance addresses there probably is but I can't tell you off the top of my head I'll have to do some research and get back to you okay and what we have in our packet looks like the existing ordinance is this just the okay we're in here do you know what section talks about the inspection bear with me just a second sure that is 27 8 page 14 last paragraph right column 27 8 compliance with other codes yes okay thank you very much thank you madam chair you're welcome it seems to me that well we need to get a sense of what the committee whether the committee is supportive of these and if so I think it's my understanding I think we would need to initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment is that your understanding you're shaking your head yes so and I'm thinking that if that's the will of the committee we could do that and still get the information back that councilmember lawless has requested yeah I would like to move on move this on through and we can add a motion I move that we add this as a text amendment well we recommend yeah but you're moving that we initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment yes ma'am to what you said to include these two recommendations I do do I hear a second okay councilmember blues seconded now questions yeah when you had your public hearing where was anyone there to oppose this no we have spoken with the building and building code inspector and and and the fire department yes it's a fire we have and when we did all of the annual inspections this has been something that was included in the council's annual report that this board gives and it was given in December of 08 a list of potential changes as part of the up annual update and so we've we've gone through this laundry list of potential changes and thus far these are the two that's made it through the board approval process and and now to your committee code enforcement and fire are both aware of these issues and the director of the division of building inspection certainly is as well okay thank you you're welcome and and so then during that hearing process were were the property owners within the boundary notified that these issues were on your agenda the we have to have an ad in the herald leader in advance of any hearing that we have and the legal and that is at least 14 days in advance of course at least seven days but not more than 21 days in advance of the public hearing and these items were listed and I know the council received the whole list as you said in December was it it was councilmember James thank you I'm sorry to belabor this point and maybe it's answered in 27 7 somehow but I'm really looking for the teeth in in this and because I do think that roof inspections are very important I think these are two really good recommendations but maybe the demolition is something that can be dealt with but I'm just trying to figure out if you're not able somehow to do the roof inspection and that's a requirement what is the we've got a compliance but what's the penalty what's the what's the next step if you're not able to do it because I could just see you know a roof is an expensive thing to repair and if someone has a building where the the roof is faulty and is then causing some problems I could see where someone would say I don't want you to look at the world try to make it to where you're not looking at the roof I think you could amend your motion just to state that whatever the text amendment reads needs to include some kind of you know penalty for the roof I mean we can do that now's the time to do that if that's your desire I just wanted to make sure wasn't already in here I don't and I haven't read it thoroughly enough to know but I thought maybe you would know that's why I'm asking you it's not in here that's why we're making the recommendation okay but you didn't make a recommendation for the penalty right and it may be I'm not sure about this but it may be that there is already something somewhere else in the building code of the zoning ordinance that deals with someone who fails to admit an official that is required or permitted under law to do an inspection we don't have that answer for you but it's possible there is already something in another ordinance that imposes a penalty generally for your failure to cooperate with an inspecting official well and see and that's where I'm going is on the residential level there's not so it's up to a person to open the door to get where this is what we deal with in neighborhoods every day so that's why I'm trying to let you know as we can have a wish list of things that we hope that people will comply with but in the end we what are we really trying to get to and can we make sure that something first of all we have to make sure it's legal to impose a penalty on someone not letting you in on I guess you're talking about private properties yeah these are all they're all private there's a few public okay so I think we do need to where I think you know if if we can do the Zoda that's great but it is it if we don't have a penalty for compliance or lack of compliance that's something we need to talk about as well so I would ask for the law department to really look deeply at that it's almost a moot point if we don't have any teeth in it well your suggestion to include that in the motion would work we would agree with that I mean the process on this motion if the committee passes it and it goes to council and passes is then it goes to planning and the Planning Commission would hear it and make a decision up or down and then if they we would get the little packet just like we do with every zone change so initiating the Zoda and Barbara Akers can tell me if I'm wrong am I right or wrong I mean would you mind commenting on that since this is the motion the text amendment would be requested by you it would go to the Planning Commission for initiation and then Planning Commission would act on it and then it would come back to the council yes yes okay so we could include that amendment correct in this motion if if the council so I'm not sure if that would be something that would be enforceable in the zoning ordinance I don't know we would have to check into that we could ask we've talked about penalties for other things and I'm not sure if that's something that would be in the zoning ordinance or if that would be in the code of ordinances or whatever but we'll find out but it could be requested in the motion sure yeah I would if in fact this group wants to do the to support this motion I'd hate to see it go another month just to get that piece of information when we maybe could include it in the motion it's my thinking can that be accepted as an amendment okay thank you so the amended motion would well okay so you're amending your motion to say that we request a soda zoning ordinance text amendment to include these two recommendations as well as an enforcement clause is that your motion a pen a fine or penalty for enforcement yes yes okay did the senator not for not cooperating or allowing the inspection did the sentence is the seconder accept that because if you do then that do we need to vote on that Kevin's not here could you repeat that please it's a front yes yes that an enforcement clause be added to the text amendment and your seconder has accepted that yes so councilmember beard and then I notice our chief attorney has come up here did you have a comment oh okay you did not all right so sorry councilmember beard I'm curious about something else are there other similar types of restrictions on other historical properties that are not in the courthouse overlay and what do you do about that or does that need to be addressed to some degree the the provisions of the historic district with design review guidelines and so forth are are similar to this courthouse area but that those zoning restrictions only deal with the exterior of the buildings mm-hmm and so typically there's this isn't an issue with any of that the roof is not considered an exterior well I mean the roof certainly is and code enforcement would be charged with making sure that a homeowner maintains their roof properly but it's not the division of historic preservations job to enforce those maintenance regulations that's what if it's another type building in the downtown area but not in the overlay that is that would follow code enforcement only and they do we've been dealing with this issue in some other groups that I'm serving on but they do try to do what they call sweeps of certain areas in the town to look at those building maintenance issues on the outside of buildings but with their present staffing and funding it's our understanding that can really only do those every four to five years and only in certain areas okay thank you councilmember Feigl yeah I just have a question about what the enforcement clause means what specifically is it what I would what I was suggesting was something that gave either that you incur a fine that you're not able to move forward with some type of permitting process something that gives something that stops someone if there is a building that has a faulty roof and that roof is leading to the degradation or whatever that word is of that particular building we've got to be able to put something in place that has where that owner of that building has to do something to that that's causing the most harm okay I understand what your objective is what you're trying to do what I'm suggesting is that if we're going to actually vote on this today that we need some more specifics to go I mean if it's a fine we need to know you know what kind of fine are we talking about well can I take a stab at the head I and Barb I'm gonna look at you because you're in planning I think that to initiate the text amendment to include this would then go to the Planning Commission and they will see whether they can legally or not legally do it number one it will check into that yes right because they may not be able to include it in this soda and number two then when it comes back to the council it would include or not include whatever it is we can do if that makes sense okay I mean I that may not that may not satisfy your concern but I think there's going to be a lot of vetting along the way I mean we discuss it and stay at staff level and take it to the Planning Commission subcommittees and take it to the Planning Commission and we'll find out if that is able to be done that way and then it will come back to the council again for a vote up or down or to put it in committee to discuss or whatever is that your sense of what might happen here okay so then the original motion is to send this to the Planning Commission is to initiate a text amendment and then it'll start to Planning Commission to yes to initiate a text amendment and then the process will kind of kick in and the way it does with every request and there was one recently where they rejected it I don't remember what it was do you remember what it was where we asked them to initiate a text amendment and they chose not to it's blocked out I've locked it out too but anyway it could come back in any number of ways and there have been times when when there has been a text amendment that's come it's gone through the Planning Commission and then it gets to the council level and it has gone to a subcommittee to discuss and then never come back in fact we had one put in just last Tuesday okay now did that that answer that question okay satisfied a question councilmember beard thank you again madam chair really and this is on the ordinance the motion well it's on the the question of the fines okay do you have a any notion or idea about how you know a $25 fine or even a $250 fine is not going to necessarily force somebody to put a $50,000 roof on their on their building I think councilmember Gorton said it best when she said there would be a lot of vetting of what this looks like so I think at some point after this goes to the Planning Commission and they make a decision whether or not this is something that can move forward there's going to be a draft ordinance and at that point in time then you will be able to discuss what that ordinance looks like and what the fine looks like and how much the fine is that's not something that we would get involved in and I think that code enforcement would also be at the table once when that ordinance is being drafted to see how it's handled in other areas that are outside of the overlay I understand how it would work I'm just just trying to pull on your all's experience as to I could remember for instance the situation with the old Ben Snyder building that roof was very faulty and it had water that drained all the way through it to the basement as I remember but if there isn't enough teeth in it do you have any Mike do you have any idea of what's done elsewhere or what the scope of what's done elsewhere as far as fines are concerned I do know that the Division of Code Enforcement has the right to impose administrative penalties and fines for failure to comply with the building maintenance code and they have done that with some downtown buildings to the tune of thousands of dollars either resulting in the owner eventually paying those fines and complying or getting the work done so I didn't want to confuse the point that that councilmember James was making about enforcement there are already civil penalties that the Division of Code Enforcement can impose if someone doesn't repair their roof once that's discovered I think the issue that isn't addressed at this point and we don't know the answer to is how do we penalize someone who doesn't let them in the door to find out that that problem exists because I would guess that if you get if you got the long that far it's too late at that point if the if the roof has been penetrated well and that's why the yearly inspection requirement in this ordinance is such a good thing because if we really do that every year we're liable to catch these problems become before they become real okay thank you vice mayor gray thank you madam chairman you know I've listened attentively and with great interest to this conversation and sometimes I think we with good intentions we maybe miss the context or the 30,000 foot or the 50 year implications of what we're talking about or trying to do here my view of it and that's I mean all the conversation that we're having is is really important I think the context of this is as a matter of public policy this area has been determined to have been fragile before being fragile important significant a touchstone it represents history it represents what many people's imagination is of a downtown of a city not necessarily big buildings like on Madison Avenue but buildings that are to scale and have a pedestrian friendliness to them and approachable mess to them at least they have what's left of them so and what we're talking about here is yes putting some teeth behind a public policy strategy that was created several years ago when the Ben Snyder buildings for example were demolished after years of neglect many would argue intentional and deliberate neglect but what we're talking about at least in my view are penalties that are more like a and more like a toy hammer than a sledgehammer so my concern I have less concern both as a property owner in the downtown as a citizen and as an elected official I have less concern about the egregiousness or the level of the penalty that we may be suggesting here then I do about the 50-year 100-year 300-year consequences of erosion of a fabric that has significant economic and brand value to a city okay so that's just to say well our company you know this these are significant questions and important ones at least in my view and I may be wrong about this but a way I'm translating it is that these penalties that we're discussing are really in the big scheme of things pretty modest right I mean we haven't set numbers to them right but the ones that you described in other other conditions that we do set numbers to what are they well I know of one case where the fines got I think up to about twenty eight thousand dollars on a single building over how many years over years right many years all right so as a matter I mean I think what we're saying is as a matter of public policy we either say that this is an important area place and therefore we should initiate legislation to protect preserve enhance it or we don't right I agree with that and I think from our boards perspective we know that when people come before us and asked to demolish one of these buildings the argument usually is I can't do anything with the building it's too far gone yes and if we're not proactive in catching these problems early then we've created that argument okay thank you sir thank you madam chairman councilmember lawless for code enforcement something like abating trash the fines can be paid and paid but if they cite a property for say a structural problem with the roof it's not just a fine they can put a lien on the property if the problem is not fixed they can also condemn the property and prohibit human occupancy which is a pretty so so there are pretty big teeth with those kinds of problems rather than you know nuisance problems is there any other comment on the motion not we'll go ahead and take the vote the motion on the floor is to request the Planning Commission to initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment to include these two recommendations brought forward and to include enforcement clauses and fines and we'll find out along the way if that can be done so all those in favor say aye anyone opposed that passes unanimously thank you very much Mike and Billy and Barb really appreciate it and that will be read out at next week's work session and then go on the docket for vote too so it's going to take a little while the final item is if you will turn to the back of your packet issues in committee and council members I wanted to first of all go straight to the second page of issues and I would like to entertain a motion to remove the private detention and retention basins since that's already been moved forward to the council and we voted on that so do I hear I hear a motion to remove it from our list do I hear a second any discussion all those in favor say aye none are opposed and then councilmember James I guess we'll wait until the heritage tree issue gets reported out next week and the council which did put it into committee votes to take it out so we'll wait on that one now if we can go back to the beginning of this list there is a lot isn't there it's all very interesting there were let me get excuse me one minute I've got another list Paul Schonegger and I get get together a time or two each month and look at the issues in committee and see what can be heard it's my understanding that the student housing and I should have asked this while Mike Moyser was here since he chairs the student housing task force it's my understanding that that issue which is two four six seven from the top will probably be ready in April we hope the electrical inspector fee will come back to us that's midway down and we've now formed a we're going to form an ad hoc to look at councilmember Henson's issues the two issues so those won't come back to us for a little while it's my understanding the Newtown Pike design ordinance toward the bottom of the first page will be ready in April and so are there any issues on here that councilmembers have questions about yes councilmember James you madam chair I was going to ask vice mayor when he when he thought we could bring something about infill and redevelopment we heard at the retreat some folks just don't know about the 160 160 recommendations and I wondered how can we bring this how can we bring those to this group or to the full council so that folks are aware of the progress so far that's good I think maybe we ought to just get an update on it and what we're doing what do you think about that well that were that next planning well in April can we do is in committee and we do need to have if you think an update would and we get an update ready yeah yeah it might even take care of some of these other issues that are in the committee some of them overlap okay let's work on that if the compare the where there may be some matching of issues right if the student housing issue is ready for April it will require a fair amount of discussion time I believe so but we could at least look at a progress report from injury development with that work yep okay councilmember lawless are you on your microphone sorry about thank you since the blue horse may not take much discussion could we put that in with the student housing or put it on the docket for April we have Newtown Pike design ordinance for April we have progress report from infill and redevelopment which you just council committee requested and student housing issues I was thinking about maybe in that special meeting Oh special meeting yeah yeah okay yeah this is for the regular planning committee so I think we're just about full for April the are there other questions about issues in committee and then we're going to talk about when we might have a special meeting to address the blue horse and the 2040 vision and we need to discuss a special meeting for the soda which was put into planning committee last week so councilmember beard I was just curious about why the blue horses in the planning committee it's a branding issue for planning for I'm presuming I didn't put it in here but I put it in planning because I it was suggested that it was a branding issue and most appropriately placed in planning so I mean it's happening already it's been it's not happening with the city it's not happening it's only happening with the convention and visitors here and it would include the wayfinder signs hopefully and so all of that was part of planning thank you and vice mayor gray had a comment but yeah because unless the council moves on this administration the mayor have said that they're not in favor of it so we've got to either do something or not and we've got 12 months or 14 months before hundreds of thousands of people are going to be here and trying to point their way around downtown one way or another find their way maybe you now if are there any other comments or any issues that need to be removed I have a comment yes councilmember James I've heard a rumor that parks master plan will be talked about in May is that correct that that is what director of parks no you in the committee I haven't discussed that with him we have not put it on our May I contacted Jerry to determine who he wanted a contact person I said it hadn't been put on an agenda yet but I was just looking for a contact person if he surmised that that meant May you know that's a miscommunication between Jerry and I but I think it'd be great if we could get to it in May yeah my I had my only concern or question was through the budgeting process if there's something that comes forward from parks that's related to the parks master plan and we haven't adopted it completely how are we going to how can we give our I guess our vote would be our input but you know I didn't want anything to precede a full-fledged discussion about the master plan that will come forward from the parks and I understand that I the it was put in you know the mayor's gonna make his budget address in three weeks so if we had we could have a special meeting to attend to it that would be really the only way it could get because he's having his hearings right now mm-hmm I mean if there's a fit I mean I'm a bit concerned not concerned but I'd like to be able to to kind of sort it out and we've got constituents that are reading it residents that are reading it and I know that they they feel like they need a venue have other people had the same input from from their residents I don't know maybe it was just me but let's look at it's possible we could have the parks master plan the blue horse and destination 2040 all in a special part planning meeting I think that would work if the committee's agreeable I would agree to that they all have been real troopers on these special meetings are there any other issues you wish to take off of the list before we look at our calendars councilmember beard or some chairperson pardon me the Liberty Road issue is that done is that there's something still pending on the Liberty Road Paul do you want to speak to that it's councilmember standard or someone from engineering can probably better address that but they're still being delayed by right away acquisition there's two parts of Liberty Road 1a and 1b and there's still some right away issues I think 1b where it intersects Todd's Road mister up in that area okay and we have this group decided we wanted to hear that in a written form so every other month so one more thing the the land bank I know when Harold was here last we talked about that whatever he brought forward he could take to the full council I think we talked about that if I recall correctly do y'all recall that it was it had to do with the establishment of that interlocal yes body interlocal agreement with the school system in the state and whenever it's ready they're going to bring it straight to council well I just had a question for the committee to see how you think we should proceed there were two affiliated ordinances or thing items of discussion that go along with the land bank and one was the vacant property and one was the blight tax and I wondered if the committee would support since those two items are play a role with the land bank could does the committee feel okay with those two items coming forward to the full committee as well at the same time as the interlocal the full council I'm sorry yes just wanted your your feedback on that feedback on that I guess I'll try it and get rejected at council thank you well would it since it's on our list do you want to make a motion to and then it'll come forward as a motion well the only thing that's on there is the land bank do you see what I mean so I didn't know I mean people could think it's an affiliate people could think it's a separate issue but it really needs to come forward together and I don't Paul do you have any update on the interlocal agreement sure sure don't but if you if you want the other two items to come forward you know I would suggest that they be blue sheeted at the same time the are in conjunction with the land bank yeah okay all right thank you you can push that forward with a motion in at council is that what you're thinking yeah because I did a motion here would not be appropriate because those two items are not in committee right thank you so good point they're all interrelated are there other issues on the list that you want to take action on okay if we could look at our calendars and you all could throw out a few ideas for this committee needs to have a special meeting to hear these soda on extended stay it was moved into committee last week and I believe it will be a full meeting it won't be like a zone change but it'll be a full vetting because attorneys have already been contacting me about it so I think we need to look at probably at least an hour and a half for that and then the 2040 the blue horse and the what did we just say we're going to put the parks master plan those issues could be in a special planning meeting and today's the 17th and Paul do you know what time the planning commission ends on Thursdays I know they end at a certain time so we can be here for a meeting okay okay I was going to suggest the 26th before the council meeting for one of these well March I was going to suggest March but Madam Chair there is a council workshop on March the 26th at 5 I don't know exactly what it is but it's on my calendar okay now let's look at April although I will say if we want to hear the parks master plan before the budget it would work to hear it before our budget work which will take place after April 14th so that's still a possibility could this committee meet for one of these issues on April the 9th before the council meeting you do does it say now I don't know that the planning commission will be finished by four o'clock or 4 30 on the 9th we might start at 5 o'clock yes on April the 9th they meet on Thursdays but not everyone how about sometimes they do they do meet before council meetings how about if we put that as a possibility I'll need to check these out with all the schedulers what on April the 9th at 5 o'clock and are there suggestions for one more meeting we meet regularly on the 21st but we're boxed in by water resources on the one end and work session on the other so I would entertain any suggestions if you can throw out a date that at 10 o'clock on the 21st and then come back into session at one o'clock that's it what do you think I like it thinking outside the box get it all done in one day 10 on April the 21st at 10 a.m. and then again at one o'clock is our normal meeting okay you won't be here that's all right I mean is there any other suggestion so that we might have some choices yes vice mayor have we have you got the agenda for what's on what day have we gotten to that yet or not no if we meet on April the 9th we can do either the zoning ordinance text amendment on the extended stay or we could do the blue horse 2040 plant parks plan and then we can vice versa is that four items or blue horse 2040 and parks that's three plus the the the other deal the zoning ordinance text amendment I believe will take its own meeting okay I think it'll take its own meeting that's why we're looking at two different times so 21st you want to do it at nine o'clock on the 21st chuck council member Ellinger is suggesting nine o'clock on the 21st okay you're suggesting and then again at one o'clock on the 21st and you're suggesting knock it all out that day I try to get it all but I'm not I'm not here on the 21st I can't I want to be here for the blue horse and so the ninth is vice mayor gray can't be here the 21st at all in the morning I want to be here I'm out of town all that day okay will you be here for one o'clock that day no no what what's your pleasure let's let's do the horse and the park and the 2040 2040 on the ninth and then yeah and then 21st is already booked with our regular issues remember nine okay we could do the just knock them out so okay okay all right so I will put out an email to all the planning committee members that we're going to meet the night April 9th at 5 p.m. and April 21st at 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. will be our regular meeting and we may actually be able to clear this list of more things yeah how's that sound that's what's being suggested it's twice on the 21st there is a council meeting on the 9th so this planning committee meeting at 5 would precede the council meeting it's a lot I know it's really a to you I'm looking for your input because I really want to find a time when we all feel like we want to be here on the set on April the 9th there is a 7 o'clock council meeting so do you want to meet at 5 o'clock or not that day you don't generally we don't but if there are certain people who won't be here because they personally do and we don't have a quorum that would be the how many could be here on the 9th of April at 5 p.m. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I think we have a quorum okay so I'll put this forth to the planning committee April 9th at 5 o'clock April 21st at 9 a.m. Chuck yeah and then we have our regular planning meeting at one o'clock that day so we'll be overdosed on planning yes but we may have a lot of these issues then complete thank you very much is there anything else we have a motion to adjourn and a second