Regular Meeting

City of Elko Development Advisory Committee Regular Meeting 4:00 PM, Wednesday, August 24, 2022 Elko City Hall, 1751 College Avenue, Elko, NV 89801 I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Keener called to order at 4:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Reece Keener Councilwoman Mandy Simons (left at 5:00 p.m.) Michele Rambo, Development Manager Jeff Ford, Building Official Curtis Calder, City Manager Luke Fitzgerald, Construction Community Dusty Shipp, Construction Community Greg Martin, Realty Community ABSENT: Catherine Wines, Design Professional CITY STAFF: Dave Stanton, City Attorney Cathy Laughlin, City Planner Bob Thibault, City Engineer III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC Mayor Keener wants a productive meeting with no personal attacks. The city has already taken action on some of the concerns expressed. He is confident this can be a productive collaboration. Dave Stanton, City Attorney discussed the organizational structure which includes three members of staff, three members of building/realty community, 2 City Council members, and one engineer. This committee will need by-laws. Until the by-laws are complete, the committee will try to follow Robert’s Rules of Order. A quorum will be a simple majority. Casey Dack, Realtor They have a written introduction. August 24, 2022 Development Advisory Committee | Minutes Page 1 of 12 The ELKO AREA HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT COALITION (Elko HOC) is n-profit 501- C3 organization, which was formed in 2022 by a consortium of General Contractors, Developers, Design Professionals & Real Estate Industry Members. Elko HOC provides a united voice when working through building industry and development issues, within the greater Elko area. MISSION The Elko Area Housing and Development Coalition (EAHDC) is a non-profit organization, committed to proactively progressing cohesive growth, in the greater Elko area, for all housing opportunities and industrial, commercial, office and land development. PURPOSE As a result, this will create a better quality of life, housing for our citizens, and economic opportunities and prosperity for the communities we live in and serve. It is committed to educating, representing, and leading our membership by fostering better and consistent communication, collaborative efforts and partnerships between local, state and federal governing bodies and our membership. We are glad to come before you today as a united voice for our community, to work through these particular agenda items. With the intention to be collaborative and positive as we move our like-minded missions forward for the betterment of our city and county. V. NEW BUSINESS V. RECOMMENDATIONS: V. Review, consideration and discussion and possible recommendations concerning issues raised by members of the local building community on the following topics: the scope and speed of Building Department plan reviews, the master reuse program and possible revisions to the Building Code, proposed meetings between builders and City Staff, abandonment and nonconforming uses, Energy Code amendments, parking requirements, stamps required for plans, the use of model homes as offices, and staging model homes for showing. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION On June 30, 2022, Reece Keener, David Stanton, Dusty Shipp and Catherine Wines met to discuss a number of issues that were of concern to the local building community. These issues are summarized as follows: A. Master Reuse Program and Plan Review. Members of the building community are interested in expediting plan reviews through the master reuse program -- and possibly standalone constructions as well -- when changes are proposed after a permit has been issued. The City is constrained by NRS 278.610, which prevents people from building without a permit and prevents the building official from issuing a permit unless the plans conformed to all building code and zoning regulations. There are different options to explore in terms of expediting plan August 24, 2022 Development Advisory Committee | Minutes Page 2 of 12  reviews, such as distinguishing material changes from nonmaterial or cosmetic changes, hiring a certified plan reviewer, and allowing builders to submit pre- approved plans. Mr. Stanton explained the current code. Mr. Stanton had some language for a possible change in code and was not sure the proposed code amendment in the packet addresses all of the issues. The question is what qualifies as a material change. Staff has told Mr. Stanton it is a material change if it is something that would require a building permit in a different situation. You are not required a building permit for a cosmetic change. Not all members of the committee received the information contained in the packet and posted on the website. Mr. Stanton stated if the committee has not reviewed it this item should be tabled. Mr. Shipp addressed a couple of thoughts about what is the intent of what we want to do here. It take a couple of months for plans to be reviewed. The second thought was what triggers a material change? The explanation made sense. The builders feels if they have a plan that has been reviewed as a starting point, instead of being sent back for a full revision, can just the changes be sent back? Mr. Ford stated WC3 has five days to review plans. Mr. Shipp stated he has never had one in five days. Mr. Ford stated he thinks they will like the proposed changes. It is grounded in the NRS. Mr. Shipp stated he has a plan on a model he has built ten times in the past. It is the same plan he submitted two years ago. It was kicked back for three weeks. Mr. Ford asked if this was the plan he submitted with the wrong codes. The codes did not match the plan. Mr. Shipp stated WC3 is not the issue. It is the backlog in the building department, maybe it's the process for getting it to WC3. This entire process needs redone. Mr. Fitzgerald asked Mr. Shipp if it was the code reference that was wrong. Mr. Shipp stated yes. Mr. Ford asked them to be more thorough on plan submittals. He stated this was a simple code reference wrong, and the code was correct. He asked that you change and the reference and it goes through. Mr. Ford stated it is not his fault the wrong reference was on it. Mayor Keener stated he thinks it goes back to the designer. They have to submit an accurate set of plans. They should be going through their own checklist to submit a clean set of plans. Mr. Ford stated he hates putting stop work orders out. He used to be a contractor and he hates stop work orders. Ms. Laughlin stated we have a residential checklist. Make sure you review that before you submit it. Make sure you don't take months to answer the comments. Mr. Fitzgerald stated all of the design professionals are super busy too. Mr. Thibault states it is not simple. If he is told something is designed to the wrong code it shouldn't even be looked at. Mayor Keener asked if a complete set of plan of 75 pages and there are problems with 3 pages, are the three pages pulled out? Jeff explained it would be sent to WC3 and they would send back comments. WC3 then waits for the comments to be answered. He stated when the plan is sent back they would only look at the pages that had comments. Mr. Bailey had an example in which they made a change of the pantry a little bigger and eliminated a closet for two houses. It was a material change. It went to full plan review for one and not the other. Mr. Bailey asked if it is the exact same plan that was reviewed and approved two days ago can't they just review the second set of plans. They were told no and it took him two months to get the other house back. Mr. Ford suggested they take the new stand alone and submit it as a new master. Mr. Ford also said after last night’s Council and passage of the new code, they will need to look at the fire wall plans. Mr. Shipp did not think his plans would need to be changed. Mr. Ford has never seen a 2 hour fire wall built in a house in Elko. If you want direction on it Mr. Ford will meet with them. Mr. Shipp wants to make sure future meetings we can add new items. August 24, 2022 Development Advisory Committee | Minutes Page 3 of 12 ** A motion was made by Dusty Shipp, seconded by Greg Martin to Table. The motion passed unanimously. (8-0) B. Thursday Development Meetings. Members of the building community want to start having live, in-person meetings again. The City currently schedules meetings based on individual requests as soon as practical. The meetings are scheduled throughout the workweek. Michelle Rambo discussed the memo included in the packet. Prior to Covid there was discussion about not having the meetings anymore due to low attendance. It was also difficult to answer questions on the spot without doing more research. Once Covid hit the meetings moved to virtual. There were 25 meetings this year. Two requested to be in person. They are pre-scheduled within 3-5 days. They can last 15 minutes to an hour depending on the issues being discussed. Ms. Rambo has heard positive comments from most people that ask for the virtual meetings. Ms. Rambo discussed the table in the memo in the packet comparing the cons of each meeting type. She stated there are significant advantages to doing the online meetings. She will be making changes if we go back to in person meetings to make them more productive. In depth or complex issues will need to be discussed by staff after the meeting and then relayed to the developer. The city will need to purchase recording equipment. We could use the water shop and the Police Department. Ms. Rambo stated you do not need a Thursday morning meeting to come in and talk to staff or ask questions. You can come in at any time. Councilwoman Simons asked why can't we ask them up front what do you prefer, in person or virtual. Councilwoman Simons stated we should not tell people we prefer virtual, we should be asking them what they prefer. Ms. Rambo stated she does that already. Everybody is given an option. Dusty Shipp stated one of the reasons we got to the point we are at right now is due to conflicts and poor communication. There was an attitude across different departments that the public did not feel like they had a voice. This item was added as an effort to bring back communication. We used to be able to walk in on Thursdays and knew everybody would be there and we could talk things out. It sometimes did not include specific details. He prefers the GOTO meetings for a specific project because he can have access to what is needed from his office. He also likes that it is recorded. We are always trying to watch what we say. Ms. Rambo explained again people can come in at any time regardless if they are on Thursdays and we will still do development meetings. Mayor Keener asked if Mr. Shipp typically attended every Thursday prior to covid. Mr. Shipp stated he attended four or five a year. Mr. Shipp stated he likes the idea of doing both virtual and in person meetings depending on preference. The disadvantage to talking to one person is the different information you get and not everyone always agrees. Ms. Rambo stated when people drop in it usually ends up with Michelle, Bob and Cathy talking to them together. Jim Winer, 700 Idaho Street, asked if they can still ask the person what they want and maybe blend it and do both. It is vital that all of the department heads be there. He has many clients that loved those Thursday meetings and you get a lot of stuff taken care of at one time. Having it standing every Thursday does not seem efficient. Cathy Laughlin stated she does agree with Ms. Rambo it is nice to have a request for the meeting scheduled so there is time to prepare and get everything figured out ahead of time. Ms. Laughlin discussed it is a waste of time August 24, 2022 Development Advisory Committee | Minutes Page 4 of 12 to have Dale and Dennis travel from their offices and sit around and waste time if nobody shows up. She suggested doing it in chambers so it can be recorded and put up on the screen. Luke Fitzgerald stated he agreed they are more productive on-line. The concern is being able to hash things out is more important to him. It's more about having a round table discussion to hear both sides of the why behind it. Mayor Keener stated it sounds like everyone is on board with doing both options. Greg Martin suggested doing the pre-scheduled Thursday meetings. He suggested scheduling it by Tuesday for Thursday. Councilwoman Simons stated she liked that suggestion. Ms. Rambo stated we can discuss that. Mayor Keener asked Mr. Stanton if action was needed. Mr. Stanton responded that the issue was resolved, so no action was needed. Mr. Stanton stated Curtis will be the staff person and Mr. Stanton will be the legal advisor on this committee. NO ACTION C. Semiannual Round Table Discussions. Members of the building community are requesting a semiannual meeting with City Staff and possibly other City officials to discuss building and construction issues. Mr. Shipp stated the idea for this item is to have a good healthy relationship and good communication. He feels it would promote relationships. Mr. Shipp stated he has gotten in trouble for coming by and bringing a coffee or donuts and he knows there is a line you can't cross to say we enjoy working with you. If the City had a roundtable meeting and brought food people would feel appreciated. Mr. Stanton stated we can have food at any meeting. Mr. Shipp wants some ideas about how to open communication. Ms. Rambo stated last week we had a planning conference next door and she spoke to Carson City Development Director who stated they have builders meetings quarterly. She would like to suggest doing this but not exactly a public meeting. Lisa Turner stated they just formed the Elko Housing and Development Coalition. It is a board that meets monthly and a membership meeting after. They are still forming the group. They would like to host the city and the county to have those discussions. It would be more informal and not necessarily in chambers but create an environment that is relaxed. Ms. Rambo felt this is a great idea. Mr. Shipp asked if Elko HDC would be the better format for the quarterly meetings. Ms. Turner answered yes that is the plan to get everyone at the table. Mayor Keener stated he will provide the refreshments at the first meeting. Cathy Laughlin stated pre-Covid for the first Friday of the first month of the quarter there was a collaboration with the County, City, and utility departments to discuss projects and issues. It gave the builders one step ahead of the game to have everyone in one room. She stated this meeting would be a good collaboration. Mayor Keener suggested the Elko HDC group build this. Mayor Keener stated it sounded like the item was settled and asked Ms. Turner to coordinate with City staff for the first meeting. Mayor Keener asked for further comments. Mr. Fitzgerald asked to make sure we will be able to handle item A tonight. Mayor Keener responded yes. NO ACTION D. Abandonment. Members of the building community want to look into changing the period of time after which a building is considered abandoned from 1 to 2 or 3 years. August 24, 2022 Development Advisory Committee | Minutes Page 5 of 12 Mayor Keener asked Mr. Stanton to speak to this item. Mr. Stanton stated non-conforming uses are disfavored. The problem with a long abandonment period is it defeats the plan use plan. Having an abandonment provision grandfathered in mitigates the economic impact on people. These are competing factors. The need to have conformance in a zoning district and the need for property owners to afford to improve buildings. Nonconformance is not favored in the law. The City Council has the power to change this in the code. Cathy Laughlin agrees with Mr. Stanton. She discussed the goal of zoning is to bring all parcels into compliance within that zoning district. You don't want one house in the middle of a commercial district. It is zoning 101. She looked at other communities in the State of Nevada and out of 21 communities 11 of them had 12 months as the discontinuance. 7 of them had 6 months. Within that there was a few that had loss of uses within 30 days. Only one out of the 21 had two years. The reason is the zoning goal is to make sure all of the buildings in that district meet the same guidelines. There was an article in the American Law of Zoning 5th addition Volume Two stating the range is from 30 days to 2 years throughout the nation. These books are updated every two years and used throughout the Country for zoning law. You will not find any municipality that has a 3 year time period. One of the key elements is non-conforming uses, in both the use of the building as well as the land, and it is in every single zoning ordinance there is. This is the basic part of zoning and she is not sure what the ultimate result would be if you changed it to 3 years. Would that mean we don't get any buildings upgraded? Elko County non-conformance is at 6 months. Mr. Shipp stated we are off topic with the goal of this item. The goal of this item is when a building goes vacant for 12 months you have to bring it up to code. The issue is that it triggers upgrades that are sometimes not possible, like ADA bathrooms and access. The process of opening a new business and buying or leasing a building takes more than one year. Ms. Laughlin stated that does have to do with zoning. If you have an entire block all zoned commercial with a house in the middle of it and it goes vacant for 12 months it cannot be a house again. When something comes to us that may be close to the 12 months we look at a variety of things to figure out when a building went vacant. The code was changed not too long ago to add this. If the water was on, it is considered occupied. If there is a business license it is occupied. If there is a current lease, it is occupied. Mr. Ford stated the ICC timeline is 6 months. As city leaders, we have an obligation to provide barrier free buildings for our disabled citizens. We would never get accessible buildings and we owe that to the public. Mayor Keener did not realize Rancho Plaza is on a unit by unit basis. Ms. Laughlin stated because they are considered separate addresses or businesses. Rancho Plaza has been an issue in the past. It is a failure when you have a landlord not willing to invest in their own property. Mayor Keener asked if he wanted to open a real-estate office and rent a unit at Rancho Plaza that was vacant for a year would he be able to get a business license. Ms. Laughlin stated no. Mayor Keener stated as a property owner it can feel intrusive to have to do the upgrades. It doesn't seem logical on your business type and use. He has never had anyone in a wheelchair come into his office. He understands the ADA is the law of the land. There needs to be accommodations and access for everyone. There are activists that will fight it. It is one of the things we have to live with. One of the reasons why we put $60,000 available for grants on an annual basis for building upgrades was approved at RDA yesterday. Mr. Jim Winer asked if helps to look at it as noncompliance versus compliance and gave the example of an insurance company in the middle of a housing district. If everything is the correct zoning can we look at it differently? When an economy is good in a market everything is full. If the economy goes bad we could have a bunch of buildings vacant and become a blight in the community. There are several buildings that sit around town because the owner August 24, 2022 Development Advisory Committee | Minutes Page 6 of 12 cannot afford to do upgrades. Mr. Ship stated this was the thought of this item. It is not always possible to add all of the things. Is there a middle ground? More time to mitigate some of the issues would help. Mr. Winer stated an occupied building is a business collecting taxes. Mr. Ford stated it is mostly the buildings down town. He stated there is some wiggle room in the code. Ms. Laughlin stated if you are 400 feet within the corridor you don't need parking. You can apply for a parking waiver. Mayor Keener is thinking of a building on Court Street that you have to go up steps and Ms. Laughlin stated this is the property that has applied for a waiver. Mr. Stanton stated you can bring it to a vote. It needs to be specific for exactly what you are asking for more time to do. Is it to bring them to fire code, building code, or use requirements for zoning? Mr. Shipp asked for a way to separate it out. Ms. Laughlin explained non-conformance again. Mr. Shipp feels it is more of an issue for building not zoning. Mr. Winer asked if this is a standing committee and how much time do we have. He would like to table this to the next meeting so the experts in the field can check into what codes could be changed and bring it back at the next meeting. Mr. Stanton stated he would like to see a vote so staff has a direction. Jim Bailey asked what happens if the building is going to sit forever. Is there something we can do to make sure the property is not just sitting vacant? Mr. Ford stated there are provisions in the building code to address this. Mr. Fitzgerald stated we will get more familiar with building code so we can also make suggestions. He wants to know what is it we won't bend on and what is it that we can have flexibility. Ms. Laughlin gave an example regarding the Court Street building. The city worked with them on ways they can do the ADA and make an attempt to make it compliant. There are some things in the current code and you need to design the entire project to this code. Mr. Ford also stated you do not have to do the entire building. There are a list of priorities that include accessible routes and restroom. Mr. Stanton suggested Jeff and Cathy come back at the next meeting to provide some information. Mr. Martin stated he is not concerned with zoning. It is building code issue. Mr. Ford stated we could move the trigger out three years but this would not take the building owner out of risk. He asked Mr. Stanton if we are putting the City at risk for a private suit if we do not enforce ADA. Mr. Stanton stated this also needs looked into and he will do so for the next meeting. ** A motion was made by Curtis Calder seconded by Greg Martin to direct staff (Cathy Laughlin and Jeff Ford) to provide information at the next meeting about the building code and exceptions and to have a list of vacant properties. The motion passed unanimously. (7-0) E. Energy Code. Members of the building community believe that the City should consider repealing the Energy Code requirements and making them just advisory. There is interest on the part of City Staff in repealing the Energy Code altogether. Mr. Ford stated he is not on board with just repealing it and not having anything to replace it with as he thinks that could put the City at risk. He is okay with relaxing it but not repealing it. Mr. Ford also stated that we will be adopting the 2024 codes soon and he expects them to be very strict. Mr. Stanton asked if we could use the term energy code light. Ms. Rambo agreed with leaving some of it. Mike Stevens knows IBC and UBC both have codes for insulation. The issue they have is the 2018 energy code there are lots of little things in it that do not matter in this climate. It is trying to keep us from putting on too big furnaces or AC. According to our calculations, we stated we are August 24, 2022 Development Advisory Committee | Minutes Page 7 of 12 putting in larger AC units and furnaces in this community because of our weather. All we need is the IBC and the IRC. Mr. Ford responded that going back to the previous building official we never have adopted it. Mr. Ford agrees we need to address this and just adopt the 2018 IBC. Mr. Shipp states the problem is when the energy code was adopted it triggered extra things we have to submit. Mr. Shipp asked about when we adopted all of the codes. He would just like to drop the 2018 Energy Code. The previous building official adopted the energy code. He only adopted the current version. Mayor Keener asked when we will be adopting the 2024 code. Mr. Ford stated in the next year it will be coming out. Jim Winer asked if there could be a motion for a smaller side working group to address just this issue. Mr. Shipp stated the County uses it as reference only and he would like the City to do that. Mr. Ford feels like we don't want to go there. It exposes the City too much. A lot of bad things can come from that. Mr. Shipp asked if we can just amend the things that are not useful. Mr. Stanton asked Mr. Ship to provide a list of the things in the energy code that are problematic. He stated yes they have a list of what they think is important to remove. Ms. Laughlin, speaking as a contractor, stated she would like to see commercial as a part of that energy code list. Ms. Laughlin will provide a list of what she thinks needs to be removed from the commercial code. Mr. Winer would like to add to the motion to also look at what would happen to just use the IRC. Mayor Keener reread the current motion. ** A motion was made by Dusty Shipp, seconded by Luke Fitzgerald to direct the building official to examine the 2018 energy code, seek amendments that will provide relief and reference the IRC. Staff to provide information about the 2024 code when available. The Elko HDC will also look at the current code and provide feedback for changes. The motion passed unanimously. (7-0) F. Parking Requirements. Members of the building community want street parking allowed throughout the City (including the central parking corridor) as a substitute for off-street parking requirements. ** A motion was made by Dusty Shipp, seconded by Luke Fitzgerald to Table The motion passed unanimously. (7-0) G. Architect's Stamp. Catherine Wines seeks to have the City to accept an architect’s stamp on plans rather than having them reviewed by WC3. Mr. Fitzgerald wanted to start the conversation even though Ms. Wines is not present. Mr. Stanton stated there are some legal issues involved with this. He went over the NRS. The issue is if the architect stamp on a set of drawings is enough to circumvent a second review by a building official. He reviewed NRS 278.570-278.586 regarding building official responsibilities. The building official is tasked with enforcing the building code and making sure the drawings meet building code. Mr. Stanton does not see any way around the second review. The other question was what August 24, 2022 Development Advisory Committee | Minutes Page 8 of 12 about WC3 reviewing the plans. There is authority for this in NRS 278.575. Mayor Keener asked if other counties are doing that. Mike Stephens feels there is miscommunication about how this whole process works. He would like just Jeff Ford to look at it and not going to WC3 if it has been stamped. He would not like revisions to go to WC3. Mr. Ford stated as the building official he is going to make the call on what goes to WC3. Mr. Shipp asked if a licensed professional has put their stamp on the plans, that there is a method to stream line the process. The experience has been that the plans are submitted, checked at the office, sent to WC3, reviewed and sent back with comments, reviewed by Jeff again, and then if there is a revision it goes through the process again. Mr. Ford stated the review is required. He uses WC3 to streamline it. If you are getting it back, it because it is not right. The architects feel like their stamp is not respected by the City. Ms. Laughlin is putting on her design and contractor hat. The value of her stamp is only to the level of the knowledge currently in her head. We all make mistakes and she looks as WC3 as an opportunity to help catch if she has made a mistake. She doesn't have all that knowledge in every code like WC3 does. If I am getting a ten page revision letter back from them she, is thankful and she won't have change orders on the job. They are an asset to the design professional. It slows it down only if I made a mistake. As a designer and contractor you have to take responsibility if you are submitting something incomplete. The only reason the process slows down is if mistakes are made to begin with. Mr. Fitzgerald stated he feels WC3 can be an asset and things do get missed but more from the hearing from the group and his experience can we talk about how to streamline so people are not losing loan rate locks. Miscommunication between plans being passed and inspectors asking for more detail. The County has the internal staff review and approve the plans and do the inspection and the process works quicker. Can we look at structural versus cosmetic problems due to the problems in the supply chain? Mike Stephens stated he agrees with Ms. Laughlin regarding design professionals. An engineer is a different story. If there is a set of plans drawn by a structural engineer his stamp should be God. Jeff stated again NRS requires the review. Mr. Stephens thinks engineers should supersede code. Mr. Stanton stated the engineer NRS does the same thing for Professional Engineers and Architects. Mike Stephens feels there is a lot of misinformation out there and people do not understand. Mr. Thibault stated Engineers are not perfect either and do make mistakes and an outside review is always appreciated. You would be surprised how many times we get submittals that fail from Engineers. Not only does it save us from change orders it saves us from law suits. ** A motion was made by Mayor Keener, seconded by Curtis Calder to Table. The motion passed unanimously. (7-0) H. Use of Model Homes as Builder's Office. Members of the building community request the City to look into a Code revision to permit this type of occupancy. Mayor Keener stated he know this happened in the past and asked Mr. Shipp to explain a recent situation. Mr. Shipp stated we are in situations where we want to use a home for a model. Meaning they can be staged and walked through. Builders will set up a spot where they can pick colors. This is what is best for the client buying the home. In the past Braemar had some challenges with this and it was shut down. This issue became we needed handicapped bathrooms and ramps. It was August 24, 2022 Development Advisory Committee | Minutes Page 9 of 12 treated more like a commercial business situation. You don't want to take a model home and start putting in ramps and bar handles. How do we get to some clarity on this? Ms. Laughlin brought up in the code where it is allowed as a temporary use permit. If you want to propose changes to this section of code. Temporary Use Permit is an application to the Planning Department and it goes to the Planning Commission. They can last for six months to three years. The problem is then the building code comes into play. We need to look at this section of code and see if it is burdensome. What we need to look at what other municipalities do. They all have model homes. The problem comes if you are running an office out of it. Is it a sales office, anyone can walk in and staff are sitting there to sell a house or is it a model home you are operating a business out of the building. Ms. Laughlin needs to look at what other municipalities do with model homes. Mr. Shipp stated he has been to lots of subdivisions in the biggest cities. There is an office set up with a sales agent is open for certain hours. In the bigger cities they will build 500 units and start with their model homes. Because we are smaller we don't have the luxury to go through the temporary use permit. By the time we go through all of that we are ready to sell the home. Mr. Shipp stated we want to find a way to meet the safety of the public without building a commercial building. Mr. Stanton clarified Item H and Item I are two separate items. Ms. Dack explained the reason for their similarities. Mr. Stanton explained this item is regarding model homes. Ms. Laughlin suggested maybe amending the code to allow administrative approval and it doesn't go to planning commission for model home permits only. Ms. Rambo suggested that during the subdivision process you could do a modification of standards in the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Stanton asked how long you would need the temporary permit. Mr. Shipp stated rarely it will go no longer than a year. Mr. Fitzgerald would like to see it authorized under the subdivision code so he could move the model homes as he goes through different phases. ** A motion was made by Mayor Keener, seconded by Dusty Shipp to Approve to direct planning and development to come back with ideas on how to have a model home/builders office. The motion passed unanimously. (7-0) I. Use of Homes for Staging Prior to COO. Members of the building community want to have the ability to put furniture in homes that had not yet received certificates of occupancy just to stage them for potential homebuyers. Mayor Keener stated this is the same issue with accessibility. Mr. Ford does not like this idea. He asked if you are close enough to put furniture in, why is there not a COO. Mr. Ford has three mechanisms to enforce code and COO is one of them. What is the game plan? Mr. Bailey stated it is very rare this would be an issue. His personal experience was he had everything signed off and the plan had to go to review again. They staged it after the inspector said it was good. They were red tagged and told that we would call the police. The house sat for two months and they were not allowed to show it. Mr. Ford asked why that is. Mr. Baily stated they had the COO and had to go back through plan review. Mr. Ford stated It really was not of COO. All of the inspections were done. Mr. Ford said he red tagged four of them for the same reasons. He stated they were not told they could not go in them. Mr. Ford said the definition of COO means the house is safe. Mr. Bailey asked if staging material is occupancy. Mr. Shipp explained his issue. He wants to know August 24, 2022 Development Advisory Committee | Minutes Page 10 of 12 why Mr. Ford thinks this is a horrible idea. Mr. Fitzgerald stated we want to understand Mr. Ford’s concerns a little better. He discussed the issues in the crazy world we have right now waiting on supplies what can we do? Mr. Ford understands the hardship part but furnishing an unbuilt house is a terrible idea. Mr. Bailey stated it is not furnishing a house. It is staging a house. Mr. Bailey stated it is not the furniture that will be in that house. Mr. Ford asked will you move it out when you are ready for final inspections. We cannot inspect a house with furniture in it? Mayor Keener asked if there any circumstances he could foresee this happening? Mr. Bailey would gladly move furniture in and out while waiting for two months. Mr. Ford wants to go on record again this is a horrible idea. Ms. Rambo asked if this is because of safety issues. Mr. Ford feels this starts chipping away at his ability to enforce the code. He is concerned people would move in before there is a COO. Ms. Rambo asked if there is some sort of timeline we could make. Mr. Bailey stated that excuse is cheap to him. He does not break the law and would never allow someone to move into his home. He is saying please give us this tool. We are not asking to secretly move people into the house. Nathan Beck stated we do not want to let people move into the house until it is closed let alone a COO. We get that all of the time, people asking to move things into the home. I always say no due to the amount of liability. Every time someone goes into a house that is not closed they must be accompanied by a company representative. Mr. Ford understands this, but he is seeing what this would lead to. Ms. Dack looks at it from a real estate side and marketing. When you get a COO, people want to move in right away. Mr. Ford stated we will not do inspections in a house that is furnished. Mr. Keener asked for a three day window from the building dept. they could stage a home to show it for 72 hours. Mr. Shipp stated staging a home is not cheap or simple to do. You want it to stay there until the next home is ready. Mr. Shipp does not feel like he is getting reasons for Jeff's concerns that make sense. Mr. Ford stated he has no heartburn if you want to take it out and call for inspection. Mr. Ford stated it is because it is against code. Ms. Laughlin is asking what is delaying the COO. Mr. Fitzgerald stated it is the slow down of getting items like cabinets. He stated as the market is shifting the homes may sit longer before they are sold. Mayor Keener suggested the real estate community reach out to other communities to see what they do given the supply chain issues. Mr. Stanton stated the city used to issue a temporary COO. This was a huge problem and would never fulfill the conditions and then the City was put in the position of having to deal with that. Mr. Stanton stated there is a concern this may have the same effect. Mr. Fitzgerald said it is always easy to say no, but we are trying to find a way to accommodate both sides. He suggested you allow us to do this but put in fines if we don't follow it. Ms. Laughlin gave another example. Mr. Bailey asked about using the garage for storage. He uses garages for other houses all of the time with rolls of carpet for a house next door. Mr. Ford explained code says you cannot use that house until there is a COO. Ms. Laughlin pulled up the code. Mr. Stanton wants to zero in on the issue. Mr. Ford states it is the chipping away at what we have to enforce the code. The definition of a COO was discussed. Mr. Shipp stated we are trying to get the COO but there are reasons we cannot get it yet. He stated they have no bad intent here. Mayor Keener feels we are getting stuck on this. ** A motion was made by DAC Keener, seconded by DAC Fitzgerald to ask the real estate community to research other communities and see if there is any flexibility. The motion passed unanimously. (7-0) August 24, 2022 Development Advisory Committee | Minutes Page 11 of 12  VI. REPORTS Items for the next meeting will be sent to Dave Stanton. Mayor Keener asked how long it will take to get the by-laws together. Mr. Stanton will look into this but he thinks they should be approved by Council. This should be an agenda item for the next meeting. Mayor Keener asked staff how much time they need for the next meeting. Ms. Rambo proposed 30 days. Ms. Laughlin asked for more information regarding the item tabled regarding parking. Mr. Ship stated a whole list explaining the items was prepared. Ms. Dack will email it to Kelly and Kelly will send it out. VII. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING Mayor Keener proposed Sept. 28 or 29. Mr. Shipp would like to start at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Shipp suggested Sept. 16th at 3:00 p.m. VIII. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Reece Keener, Mayor August 24, 2022 Development Advisory Committee | Minutes Page 12 of 12