Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. and we welcome you to the session of the Board of Adjustments. There's a couple of things we are going to do before we start the agenda. Number one, I'm going to ask that if you have cell phones, that you either please turn them off or put them on silence, please. That's for your benefit and for anyone else here in the room that's going to be making presentations. We want to honor a couple of our past board members before we start, and we have a certificate here for them, and I will read the certificate for Ms. Joanne Bell, who has been a very, very strong and influential member of this board since 2000 and we're going to miss her. Ms. Joanne Bell. Whereas we the members of the Lexington Fayette County Urban County Board of Adjustments and staff acknowledge the fulfillment of the term of office of Ms. Joanne Bell from the Board of Adjustments and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Ms. Bell for her valuable service to this board. served on the Board of Adjustments from August 31st, 2000 to July 1st, 2008. And whereas Ms. Bell has consistently shown a deep concern for the citizens of Fayette County as reflected in her decision regarding appeals to the Board of Adjustments. And whereas the members of the Board and staff feel that the service given by Ms. Bell as a member of the Board of Adjustments will be greatly missed. Now therefore be it resolved. We the members of the Board of Adjustments and the staff do hereby express our gratitude to Ms. Bell for her service to the Board, to the citizens of Lexington and Fayette County. And we the Lexington and Fayette Urban County Board of Adjustments and staff do hereby wish for Ms. Bell much happiness and continued success and ask that she continue to give valuable guidance to the members of the Board. And be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Ms. Bell and also spread upon the mayor of the book, the book of this body, dated at Elections of Kentucky this 22nd day of August 2008. Signed, Mike Owens, Chair, and the rest of the Board members. Ms. Bell, would you come forth and would you present that for your place? Thank you very, very much. I'm deeply appreciative of this. And I'd like to thank the members of the board as a citizen because of the great service I think this board provides. And I certainly would like to thank the staff and Rochelle for the wonderful contribution she has made to my education. And to the planning staff for all of their help and their consistent patience with me. I think it's extremely important for people to give back to a community, and I hope that in some way I did some of this by being a member of the board. board. One of the things that I've gained much appreciation for as a result of being on this board are the different neighborhoods in the community. Places that I wouldn't, parts of the county and city that I would never have gotten to if I had not been a member of this board and went to see places that were going to be on our docket. And over these eight years I have seen a tremendous change in our community, not only in the new housing areas and so forth, but the number of neighborhoods that really have begun to change and take great pride and concern in themselves. And it's very interesting to see how many of these over these eight years have initiated things and have continued to grow. And as a person, I hope that recognizes that neighborhoods are the backbone of any community, and I think that one of the things that this Board contributes to is involving members of their communities in decisions and requiring some mediation as part of our concern and our considerations. I thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Bell. It's been a pleasure serving you. And if anyone gets out of line, we will give you a call. The next former board member and former chairperson is L. Michael Owens. I've had the privilege to watch this young man grow up. He grew up as my neighbor for many years, so needless to say, I'm quite proud of where he is and the things that he has done in his life. Whereas we, the members of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Board of Adjustments and Staff, acknowledge the fulfillment of the term of office of Mr. Michael Owens from the Board of Adjustments, and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Mr. Owens for his valuable service to this board. having served on the Board of Adjustments from August 18, 2005 to August 27, 2008, and as chair from July 27, 07 until the end of his term, which time he became a member of the Planning Commission. And whereas Mr. Owens has consistently shown a sense of fairness and a deep concern for the citizens of Fayette County, as reflected in his decisions regarding appeals to the Board of Adjustment. and whereas the members of the Board and staff feel that the service given by Mr. Owens as a member of the Board of Adjustments will be greatly missed. Now, therefore, be it resolved. We, the members of the Board of Adjustments and staff, do hereby express our gratitude to Mr. Owens for his service to the Board and to the citizens of Lexington and Fayette County. And we, the Lexington, Fayette, Urban County Board of Adjustments and staff, do hereby wish for Mr. Owens much happiness and continued success and ask that he continue to give valuable guidance to members of this Board and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Owens and also spread upon the minutes of the book of this body. Dated at Lexington-Fayette County this 26th day of September 2008. Signed, Louis Stout, Acting Chair, and the rest of the Board members. Mr. Owens, would you come up? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stout, Acting Chair, and the rest of the Board. I could say ditto and leave it at that. Ms. Bell was a member during the three years that I served, and even though when she spoke, she spoke softly, what she did say was very important. And for that, I'd like to thank her myself. thank the board a very good board that is diverse and that is exactly why it works so well provided me especially the one year that I chaired all kinds of support as I told Mr. Griggs he had better support and be nice to me because he put me there but But as far as the board, I'd like to sincerely say thank you for the support and all of what we have done together. Staff has been invaluable. Mr. Jim Marks and Bill Sally, you know, their phones were constantly ringing. And I'm sure they got way too many voicemails and said, oh, it's Mike again. but they were always very gracious and walked me through everything, anything that I had questions about. The staff on this side, I could say the same thing. Mr. Hume's not here today, but if I showed up to a board meeting and had not called him, he started getting upset because he thought he was being left out. But everything has worked so well during the three years that I serve. let me not forget the regular presenters I don't know if Ms. Wiseman's here but Rena Wiseman Mr. Murphy, even Bruce Simpson, yeah we like Bruce Tony Barrett's here today, they always bring a very good case to us in a very professional manner so for that I'd like to say thank you, I will miss you I will tell you my first planning commission meeting went 8 hours and 15 minutes. So hopefully we can trim those down a little bit. But thank you very much. Thank you. Again, I know we had some people to come in later. We would ask that to remind you to please turn your cell phones off or put them on silence, please. We will start meeting by sounding the agenda but before we do that I will ask the staff if there's any cases that have been withdrawn at this time I believe it's in the agenda as withdrawn page 8 item number 11 upscale promotions we did get a written request for withdrawal for that. Page 8. And which number is that? Number 11, upscale promotions. We don't need to take any action on that. No actions required. Any other cases withdrawn? You know, staff? We're going to sound the agenda and those cases that have been suggested approval by the staff that have no objections, we will hear first. Those cases that will have been disapproved, recommended disapproval by the staff, we will put closer to the end. And those who have objections to any of the cases will be put next to the last. So what we will do, we will sound the case and I will ask if representatives are here and then I will ask if there's any objectives and if they are would you raise your hand please case number one V-2000 228 to 2008-67 CarMax Auto Superstores Inc. is there representatives here for that you just raise your hand we don't have to come we'll take you. Is there anyone in here in objection to B200867 CarMax Auto Superstores Inc? Any objectors? And I think here this case will be going toward the last because the staff has recommended this approval. Next case. V20088, Dennis E. Shanks. The staff has recommended approval. Is there a representative here? Thank you. Is anyone in the audience in opposition to this case? Anyone in opposition to this case? Thank you. The next case is V200889, Shady Hills Development. Are the representatives here from Shady Hills? Thank you. The staff has recommended approval for this case. Is there anyone present that is objecting? Next case, V2008-90, Geddes Pools, Inc. The staff has recommended approval. Is there a representative chair from Geddes? Thank you. Are there any objectors to this case? Any objections? Next case is C2008-73, W.D. Thomas slash New Vine Baptist Church. Are there representatives here from? Thank you. Are there, the staff has recommended approval. Are there any objectors? I don't have objections, I just have questions. And we're going to list you as an objection until we hear what you have to say. The staff here has recommended approval for this case, but we will listen to what you have to say. C2008-74, Evelyn A. Johnson. The staff has recommended approval for this case. Are there representatives here? Thank you. Are there any objectors? Any objections? I don't know if you caught that, Mr. Stout, in the back corner here. Let's see your hands, please. Okay. No objections. Not objections. C-2008-79, Morgan Properties, Inc. Staff has recommended approval. Are there any objectives to this case? One objection. That will be put close to the last. C2008-80 Bethel Temple Assembly of God. Are there any objectives? Are there any objectives? That will be put close to the last. C2008-80 Bethel Temple Assembly of God. The staff has recommended approval. Are there any objectors? Any objectors? C2008-81, Jason Scheer. The representatives here from Jason. Jason Scheer, representative. Thank you. The staff has recommended approval. Are there any objectors? One objection. C2008-82, Centerpoint Christian Church. The staff has recommended approval. Are the representatives here? Is there anyone here in objection? Any objectors to this case? C2008-83, Blight Savage. Staff has recommended approval. Is there a representative here from Savage? Thank you. Are there any objectors? C2008-84, Mac Bailey. Staff has recommended approval. Is Mac Bailey represented? Thank you. Are there any objections? C2008-85, Imani Missionary Baptist Church. Representatives here from Imani. Are there objectors? The staff has recommended approval. There are no objectors. A2008-87, AA Graphics. The staff has recommended disapproval, so that will be at the end, close to the end. So we'll take that. I believe that is all. one other point as we went through these cases is there anyone here wanting to postpone come forward sir give your name and the case number please I'm McQuinn I'm here on item number one CarMax Auto Superstores Inc we would ask that that be postponed till the October 31st meeting board and have any questions regarding this? Do I hear a motion to accept postponement? So moved. Second. We have a motion on the floor and second that V2008-67 CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. be postponed. Is that one month? Yes. For one month. Thank you. Case will be heard in October. Thank you. All in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you. Anyone else postponing? Any other case postponing? I will ask that anyone that is here to speak for or against, if you would please stand and take this oath, please. I swear you in. You swear the testimony you give here today will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I can't hear you. Thank you. case number one v2008-88 Dennis E. Shanks Denise, excuse me Denise E. Shanks you give your name and please my name is Denise E. Shanks Ms. Shanks, you are aware that the board has recommended approval? Yes, sir. And there are two conditions. Are you in agreement with the conditions? Yes, sir. Do you have any questions or concerns relative to this case? No, sir. So you agree to abide by what's there. Do the board here have any questions or concerns regarding this case? If not, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I would recommend that V2008-88 Denise E. Shanks appeal for a variance to reduce the required side yard for a detached garage from 18 inches to 12 inches in a two-family residential R2 zone on property located at 319 Sycamore Road, Council District 5, be approve is recommended by staff with the conditions that are set forth. Go ahead and hear a second? Second. We have a motion on the floor and a second to approve. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you all. Case 2. V2008-89 Shady Hills Development. appeals for variance to reduce required rear yard from 25 feet to 14 feet to allow deck to remain as built in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 2500 Treeline Way Council District 6. Give your name please sir. I'm Fred Eastridge with Sherman Carter Barnhart. Mr. Brester sends his apologies for not being here today but he's under the weather and he's at home trying to recuperate. The staff has recommended approval with four conditions. Have you read the conditions? Yes, I have, sir. Are you in agreement with the conditions? Condition number three, I would like to make a statement that there is not a 25-foot utility easement back there. So that's being evaluated by the staff at this present time. Staff, what are you? Mr. Salih's gone to hopefully find the plat, so if you want to come back to this one. We'll come back to this as soon as he gets back here. Thank you, sir. The next case is V2008-90, Gettys Pool, Inc. appeals for a variance to reduce the required side street, side yard from 30 feet to 27 feet in order to retain a recently constructed pool in a single-family residential R1D zone on property located at 321 Sebastian Lane, Council District 10. The staff has recommended approval. It's subject to three conditions. Your name, sir? DJ Geddes. Are you the owner? Will be. You will be, huh? The staff has recommended approval. There are three conditions. Have you read the conditions? Yes, sir. Are you in agreement with those conditions? Yes, sir. Any questions by staff or? Any other board members? I have a question. Are you the owner of the home or the installer of the pool or the boat? Just the installer company. Matthew Barry is the homeowner. I'm on behalf of Matthew Barry. There was a permit issue. This was a surveying error. Is that what occurred here? It was more of just, yeah, miscalculation off the building line. We didn't take a 90-degree angle. We just straight lined it so we were about 16 inches off. It's just one corner of the pool. But there was a building permit issued and then the measurements were done wrong in the field, correct? Yes, yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions from board? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Chair, I move that V2008-90 Gettys Pool Inc.'s appeal for variance to reduce the required side street yard from 30 feet to 27 feet in order to retain a recently constructed pool in a single family residential R1D zone on property located at 321 Sebastian Lane Council District 10 be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to conditions recommended by the staff. Do I hear a second? I'll second. We have a motion on the floor to approve. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next, so we have an objection on the next case, I see. The next two cases, I see. Which case was that, Mr. Stapp? 2-0-0-8-7-3, W.D. Thomas. Did we do anything with the Greek church yet? The first one under conditional uses. I met with them about a week ago. They have to postpone again. The Greek church? Yeah. It's not in here. It's not in the package. Is Dick Murphy with them? Because he left with a bunch of people. No, no, they don't. It's not in the package. Oh, well, we didn't resend all the information just to save paper, more or less. It should be on your agenda, though. It's on the agenda, but it's not in the notebook. They have not gotten everything together to proceed today, so they pretty much have to postpone until next month. Is that 2-0-0-8-24? That's correct. Haven't we heard this several? It's been postponed several months, yeah. What is the staff's position with this particular case, please? We originally recommended approval. At the first hearing, a number of issues came up with the neighborhood regarding parking and some other things, the mass of the building addition. so the hearing was continued. They've been working on revisions to the plan. They just aren't ready yet to come back. Is there any way that you as staff or from the legal area could advise this church not to come back before us until they have their act in order? We can request that if they think it's going to be more than one month to ask for a longer postponement. That's about it. I would suggest that you do that. Okay. How does this board feel? Well, it's a continuation of the case, isn't it? It's not really a postponement. We're postponing the continuation. They've done this now about three times. I think for us to keep having to be anticipating addressing this case, I think they need to have there work with the staff to find out exactly when they want to bring it before us to be heard another problem with the continuation is that the staff is changing with two of the members that heard the original testimony are no longer here that's true so we might need to conclude it and start over well we will relay those concerns to the church folks thank you So we will go to C2008-80, Bethel Temple Assembly of God. The staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Yes, sir. Chris Logan, the pastor of Bethel Assembly of God. Give your name again, please, sir. Chris Logan. Chris Logan. Chris, the staff has recommended approval. For the Assembly of God's Appeals for a conditional use permit to expand the church, 800-square-foot foyer in a single-family residential R1C zone on a property located at 1455 Bryan Avenue. Are there any objectors? Are there any objections? You've read these conditions, and do you approve? Yes, sir. Do you have any questions? Staff, do you have any questions? Board, any questions? We will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend we approve C2008-80 Bethel Temple Assembly of God's Appeal for a conditional use permit to expand the church in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 1455 Bryan Avenue based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the three conditions. Second. Second. We have a first and a second on the floor to approve. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. I missed one. I want to go back to C200A-74. Evelyn A. Johnson's appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a child care center for up to 42 children in an existing church building in a single family residential R1C zone on property located at 549 Parkside Drive. Council District 6. Come forward, please. The staff has recommended approval and they have listed five conditions. Would you give your name, please? Evelyn A. Johnson. Have you read the conditions? Yes, sir. Are you in agreement to the conditions for you? Yes, sir. Mr. Stout, we have an additional condition we'd like to present. Would you put it up there on the screen so we could look at it, please? This relates to the marking of the two entrance drives. Actually, one's an exit drive at the church. We had the impression, based on the site plan, that those were already marked as entrance only and exit only, but they're not. So we'd like to add this condition just to make sure that they put signage to clearly indicate the entrance drive and the exit drive. and also directional arrows on the pavement. So they're adding an entrance and an exit, right? It's just to more clearly mark the existing drives. The church has two driveways right now. They're both single lanes, so the one that's closest to the elementary school needs to be entrance only, and the other one needs to be exit only. We have letters here that are in opposition to Actually, we have three that are here in opposition to your request. Evidently, these are neighbors that are across the street from you that are not in favor of what you're trying to do. We will let the board look through these before we discuss. Have you talked to anyone in your neighborhood about this? Yes, they were here, but they left. And they said that, you know, if they would have known that we would have agreed to have done all the recommendations that was listed, that they wouldn't have showed up at all today. So you're saying the people that wrote these letters were here today? Yes. Then I will open it up for the staff for any questions, I mean for the members for questions if you have any, please. Do you agree to the sixth condition that we just discussed? Anyone on the board have any questions? Just bear with us Sarah. Let me ask you a question while they finish reading. It was my understanding that you said these people are no longer in opposition now that they know the conditions that have been set forth. Correct. Mr. Griggs, do you have a question? No, I'm okay. Thank you. Anyone else on the board? I have a question for the staff. Have you read the letters? Do you have any comments on the complaints and how they would respond to the conditions that would affect us? Well, we mostly focused on the objection letter from the immediately adjoining residents, which was the woman who was here earlier. I think there's a couple of modifications that were done to help eliminate concerns of hers. The drop-off location was moved to the back side of the church rather than the side. They reduced the size of the play area and agreed to just have staggered play times and also have agreed to put a more substantial privacy fence along the side of the playground that backs up to the rear yard of that adjoining residence. So we think they've taken steps to address those concerns. You don't see any safety concerns? No. We don't have anyone in the audience objecting other than the three letters we have here, so I guess we're open for a motion. Mr. Chair, I would like to recommend the C2008-74, Evelyn A. Johnson's appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a child care center for up to 42 children in an existing church building in a single family residence R1C zone on property located at 549 Parkside Drive in Council District 6 be approved as recommended by staff with the six conditions and the sixth one being added today that they have agreed upon. Do I hear a second? Second. We have a first and second motion on the floor. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Thank you. We will move to C-2008- 82. Center Point Christian Church. Center Point Christian Church appeals for a conditional use permit to amend a previously approved site plan for a church with accessory parking and a light industrial I-1 zone on property located at 865 Greendale Road Council District. The staff has recommended approval with nine conditions. And who do we have here? Mike Merriman, Core Property Sciences. You've read all these conditions? Yes, sir, I have. Are there any questions or concerns about any of the conditions? No, sir. We have no one here in disagreement with this case. Staff, do you have questions? Board members, questions? We don't have any questions from board members, then I will seek a motion, please. Mr. Chairman, I move that C-2008-82 Center Point Christian Church Church's appeal for a conditional use permit to amend a previously approved site plan for a church with accessory parking in a light industrial I-1 zone on property located in the city. at 865 Greendale Road, Council District 2, be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the nine conditions recommended by the staff. Are you a second? Second. We have a first and second motion on the floor to approve. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passed. Thank you. Case C2008-83, Black Savage. Appeals for a conditional use permit to establish a home occupation making hats in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 214 Arcadia Park, Council District 3. The staff has recommended approval with four conditions. May I have your name, please? Light Savage. Ms. Savage, have you read the conditions? I have. Do you have any questions or concerns about the conditions? No. Do you agree to them? Yes. Are you going to make good hats? I've been making good hats for a long time. Good hats for a long time. We have a couple of, we have one in favor? This basically has some questions. And we have one that asked the staff questions, so I guess the staff had these before they came forth with this recommendation. So we'll let the board look at these, and if they don't have any questions, then we will seek a motion. So I guess one of the concerns here is the possibility of traffic, And I assume you believe that number three, customers shall not come to the house for any reason, satisfies any concern about traffic. Yes, for now it does. I think the concern was that if the operation changes to be more retail with direct sales at home, then they would have to come back to the board and get that changed. All you need is a hat size, isn't it? Yeah, I have the same customers. You know, with two kids, I'm not really soliciting new business. I'm just trying to keep it afloat until the kids go back or get in school full time. So have you actually been operating this out of your home already, or were you doing this somewhere else? I sell hats down in Chevy Chase at Elo, but I've been doing this since 94. But you were doing it at a different location, and now you want to do it at home? Is that it? No, I've been doing it at home, but we just found out the city just, when we filed for taxes, I guess, then we got this stuff. So we're doing it accordingly. I was told when I first got here that all you had to do to open a business was go get a business account, which is what I did. So there's actually no change in what you've been doing. You're just now asking for permission. Yeah. And no neighbors. Have you ever received complaints? Anybody ever received complaints from neighbors? Building inspection? No? I don't guess anybody. Nobody's ever come to the house for a half. I don't guess anybody would know you. Or I ship them, you know. I don't guess anybody would know you're making a hat unless they peek it in your window, isn't that right? Any questions, Mr. Board? Then I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend we approve 2008-83 Blight-Savage Appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a home occupation, making hats in a single-family residential zone on property located at 214 Arcadia Park, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the four conditions. Second. Second. We have motions on the floor to approve. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you. Next case is C2008-80 Ford. Mac Bailey appeals for a conditional use permit to establish a church in an existing building in the neighborhood business B1 and a single family residential R1D zone on property located at 4981 Oversales Road, Council District 12. The staff has recommended approval subject to five conditions. In favor of it. We also have a letter here in favor of this proposal. Your name, sir? Mac Bailey. You're Mac Bailey. That's me. Good. Nice to see you, sir. Have you read the conditions sent by the staff? Well, I have one adjustment I would like to make. the illustrious staff headed by Mr. Marks was not aware that the church has a off-road parking, additional off-road parking across the street for about 15 to 19 cars which would increase the number of people that could attend the church. Behind that building there's also about maybe 20 additional spaces in case of large crowds. So I would like to suggest that the staff change the number of, I guess, people that it can, the occupancy number, to reflect the number of parking spaces that are available. So you have 45 seats now? They recommend 45. Okay, how many seats do you have in the church? Well, the fire department says that the maximum in that building is 175. Are you the minister? I'm sorry? Are you the pastor? The pastor's right here. Staff, do you have any concerns about this? Yeah, the original application said between 35 and 50 sanctuary seats. So when we got to 45, we figured that was pretty close to the top end of what they wanted. We did make a note of the additional parking in the staff report. It didn't really play into the conditions. So this condition, number one, based upon your recommendation, is it saying they can't have any more than 45? Right. which, like I said, was only five off what the maximum was they had originally requested, so we figured we were really close. I've never heard of anything so much greater than 50 that was just mentioned. Any of the board members having concerns? When you mentioned 170, that was just the capacity of the building based on the fire marshal? The fire chief whom I visited said that the space available would allow 175. What is the occupancy that the applicant would like to have? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. How many seats would you propose? Well, we were proposing the number of seats, the maximum number of seats that the parking will allow. Now, according to the building, the people over there, building inspection, there is five people per parking space. This particular lot has nine parking spaces. Across the street, where the Reverend has a lease on that parking lot for Sundays and Thursday night, any night, gives him about 19 more spaces. And then there's additional parking in the back behind that building. So he has a lease that he has obtained that property for additional parking. And what he would like to do and we would like to do is allow the number of people that can attend the church to match the number of parking spaces. So you're talking about going from 45 to 140? Correct. That's a pretty good jump. That's correct. He must be a hellfire and brimstone preacher. He's a good preacher. He is, huh? I'm wondering if the neighbors that received notice about this hearing would have chosen to come and question the wisdom of that if they'd known it was so much, if the intensity was going to be that much larger. I guess when I saw Mr. Marks, he was not aware of this across-the-street property. We were very aware of that. I'd like to make a note of the actual letter that went to the property owners specifically stated between 35 and 50 persons' attendance. So that went to the property owners around the church? Yes. Just a moment. So let's let him finish. And when he finishes, I'll let you speak, sir. Yes. So right now you're trying to increase this from 45 to 140, which I feel is beyond what was requested. Are you all in any position to postpone this case until the staff has had a chance to review, until another letter has a chance to go out to your neighbors regarding the number of people that you're wanting to attend this church? Well, I don't think that the church would like to do that. They've waited a long time for occupancy. I would like to suggest that when this goes before the building inspection people, or whatever they're called, to get his occupancy permit, that this board say that they should consider the number of parking spaces, and they will do that. According to them, they said they would do it anyway. They will check everything to make sure everything is done. For instance, some of the things that had to be done that have been done is that it has to have panic hardware on the doors so that anybody can just go out of the door with a little oct or whatever. Well, has building inspection been involved with this program with you? They have to issue an occupancy permit for the church. Building, is there anything you all want to add to this particular situation relative to what they... Yes, ma'am. If the notice went out to the persons in the notice area that we were talking about, a church between 35 and 50 people would be present at any time of the service, that is not adequate notice now for a church where it's going to be increased to 150 people. And let me ask you a question, Council. Would they be able to come back down the road and seek additional parking? They can always come in and file another application to amend their conditional use permit to increase the occupancy. But if they want to get 150 people from the beginning, the ability to have 150 people in there from the beginning, they've got to send out new notices because the neighbors have not been informed of what is actually going to be taking place on the property. And it is my opinion that they're not eagerly wanting to postpone this for 30 days, so this board has to act on the cases before us at this point in time. Right. They could approve the original request. But a request for over 100 more people could not legally be addressed by the board. So we, as the board, cannot address your request for it to be increased to 140. We are only in a position to address the case that we have before us, which is involved with the 45 seats in your sanctuary. Now, if you wish to postpone this case for 30 days and do time from the staff's recommendation that you give due notice to your surrounding neighbors, then that would be my suggestion to you, unless you want to start this case off, start your program off with 45 sanctuary seats. My conversation with Nancy, the head of that division, or the one that really does the She said that when they review the case for occupancy permit, that they could evaluate the parking at that time. Also, the requirements for the fire department. But your letters went out to your neighborhoods stipulating the number of parishioners that would be in your church was totaling to 45. And if we change that and give you 150, then this board and the staff will be sort of taking those people, taking advantage of those individuals and not giving them the opportunity to voice their concerns. Mr. Staff, I would, since it is a small church, I guess what we would like to do, what I would like to do, is accept what we have on the table right now. and then I guess we can reapply for additional and send a new letter and repeat the process. Yes. Any questions from the board? We have a reverend who wants to speak too, I believe. Thank you. Thank you. First of all, I'd like to say is that I'm a visionary. I believe that whatever God intends for a man to do, he does not intend for him to stay small. We have been very influential in helping this community. We have saved probably this city almost a half a million dollars by making sure that men that could go to the prison, we provided living spaces for them and working very closely with the courts. So a lot of our base growth is being based on the continual people that we get from prison that are sent through us from judges. Our church is not like the average ordinary church where we get a lot of big titers and we get a lot of well-educated people. We have a few of those, if you understand what I'm saying. But we mostly reach out to people that a lot of people probably just don't have the needs or the ministry to deal with. So we are expecting people to come, several from the prison system that are getting out early. We work very closely with the commissioner of this state, several of the judges here in this city and on the circuit court. So our growth is based on what we see we're coming into in the future, as well as families attending because of the support and the help that we are giving their children. Now, I am more than willing to accept the recommendation of what we have sent out now. I believe in integrity. I believe if we told the neighbors that this is the amount that we are going to offer them, then that's the amount we need to deal with at this time. But I just want to make this board aware that we are expecting future growth. This is why we recommended, Mr. Bailey recommended, the only reason we put this on the table is because we understand what's coming. So I'd just like to thank you for this opportunity to hear my concerns and where we are planning to head in the future. And I truly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Reverend. Reverend, can we get your name for the record, please? Byron Cooper. Thank you. Any questions by the staff? Any questions by the board? I'd just like to say we appreciate your service, and I think it's great, and I hope that if it's really an asset to the community, it will grow. But if it's going to grow, please come to see us before it's grown to ask for permission rather than after. Thank you very much. We'll hear a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that C-2008-84 Mac Bailey's appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a church and an existing building in a neighborhood business B1 in a single-family residential R1D zone on property located at 4981 Old Versailles Road, Council District 12, be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor of the motion presented, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you all. Next case, C2008-85, Imani Missionary Baptist Church, appeals for conditional use permit to establish a child care facility in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 1555 Georgetown Road, Council District 2. The staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. I would like to say on behalf of that facility out there, it's very, very impressive. Thank you. Very, very impressive. Mr. Chair, a member of the board, my name is Chris Howard with Carmen on behalf of Imani Missionary Baptist Church. We have read the conditions and understand the conditions and are willing to abide by the conditions. There are no objectors here, so unless the board has questions or concerns, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to recommend that C2008-85 Imani Missionary Baptist Church appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a child care facility in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 1555 Georgetown Road in Council District 2 be approved as recommended by the staff with the four conditions. Do I hear a second? Second. We have a motion on the floor and seconded to approve. All in favor of, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you. And we will take the case where the staff has recommended disapproval, then we will come back to those cases where we have objections. A2008-87 AA Graphics appeals for an administrative review to allow a 119 square foot tree standing sign, whereas in the ordinance allows only 75 square feet. In a highway service business B3 zone on property located at 1780 Sharky Way Council District 2, staff has recommended this approval. for three reasons, A, B, and C. May I have your name, sir? Arthur Zensky. Arthur Zensky. Staff, would you like to start this off, please? this appeal relates to the size of a proposed freestanding sign for a holiday and express hotel that is planned for development on what's known as the sharky property at the interchange of Leestown Road and New Circle Road on the northwest side of town. Subject property is right in here. The proposed freestanding sign is at this corner right in here. As you'll note, it's a B3 zone which allows a freestanding sign of 75 square feet. The proposed sign, as measured by building inspection and by the applicant, is 119 square feet. So it's 44 square feet larger than what the zoning ordinance allows. The next overhead will give you a better idea of what the actual sign looks like. The real issue here is the requirement that when you measure the size of a sign, If any of the structural support members, in this case it has one support right in here, if any of the pole covers extend for more than six inches from that structural support, then it has to be included in the size of the sign. As you can see, they have this whole area in here, which I guess is decorative to cover the pole. That seems to be the trend somewhat these days with this kind of sign. but if you do that, which is the way you have to measure it based on what the zoning ordinance says, it comes to 119 square feet, which is the 44 square feet too large. At the top of your staff report, you'll note that, and I'm sure some of you are tired of hearing this, but the board's not allowed or authorized by the zoning ordinance to increase the overall square footage of what's allowable for signage on a building or a property. the applicant really didn't provide any justification for this appeal there was no interpretation issues of any kind that were pointed out it's just simply a matter of they want to sign that's larger than what the zoning ordinance allows so we couldn't support that now sir what'd you say your name was Arthur Zansky Mr. Zansky you have something you want to say Mr. Marks, does the ordinance say that they can have two freestanding signs on the property, each being up to 75 square feet? The ordinance allows up to two freestanding signs, one per street frontage. Okay. Their request, Mr. Patel's request, is instead of having two signs on the property, which would total 150 square feet, whether or not, as has happened before, we could combine the square footage for one sign. That was never part of the application. It wasn't on the refusal form. That wasn't addressed in any way in the application, so we did not even have that on our radar screen. I understand. I don't even know if the backside of this, which is close to New Circle Road, would qualify as frontage or not. We would have to look at that pretty closely. Since this board cannot deviate from what the regulations state, unless you are willing to have this case reviewed again by the staff requesting the two freestanding signs, we don't have a choice. Mr. Chairman, if I may, we can go back to the first exhibit. The property does not have two frontages. If you look at the base map, there is a small tract of land between the rear property line of this property and the right of way of New Circle Road. So although it appears from the road to be a double frontage lot, it technically is not. There's a small strip of land there owned by the urban county government. The new circle wouldn't be counted as a... New circle is a road. Your lot does not front on that right of way. Not front on that right of way. Unfortunately. Gotcha. So what's your pleasure, sir? Thank you for your time. So do you wish to withdraw or postpone? I would say we would withdraw. We do have to have a, won't have to have any votes on that, do we? Case A2008-87 has been withdrawn. Thank you, sir. Now we will go back to case number V2008-89, Shady Hills Development Appeals for Evarance to reduce the required rear yard from 25 feet to 14 feet to allow a deck to remain as built in the planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 2500 Treeline Way, Council District 6. Staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. However, there is a question relative to the number 25 utility easement. 25, I guess that's what you're talking about. Am I correct? That's correct, sir. So what is the findings? Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'd like to put on the overhead the plat that created the lot and then the exhibit that's been submitted to the board. I apologize that they're not quite oriented the same. this is the lot at 2500 Treeline Way. The rear of the lot highlighted in yellow is a 10-foot utility easement. There is also noted on the plat a 25-foot setback. The confusion arises because the lot immediately to the north is both a 25-foot setback and utility easement. So it appears to the staff that this notation of a 25 foot setback in utility easement is in fact an error and that the utility easement on this lot is only 10 feet in width. So that setback there needs to come out, right? The setback information on the exhibits you have is correct. The utility easement is in fact only 10 feet. All right. Therefore, our third recommended condition can be deleted. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The staff has informed us that number three on the conditioning can be deleted. Do we need to take action on it or just remove it for the staff recommendation to remove? Yeah, when you make your motion, you would just indicate subject to three conditions, deleting what was previously numbered as condition three. The staff has three conditions. Are you now in agreement with three being deleted? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Do we have questions, any additional comments relative to this case, staff, you, sir, or the board? I have a question. Was there a building permit issued for this deck? Because it's built and it's in a setback. Sir, I do not know. I'm coming down here to help Mr. Brester out because he's sick and he can't attend. I'm vaguely familiar that the deck was built along with the house. I do not know. The house is a new construction house. So the house and the deck were built at the same time. and apparently I don't know what happened. I don't know if the deck was included in the building permit or not. Would building have any information on this particular property? Only information I have is what he's just told me about. A permit would not have been issued for that deck in that placement. Would they have to have a permit from building to? They'll have to, after you approve, if you approve this, we'll issue a permit according to these conditions. Thank you. I'm always disappointed, especially when a developer puts something up without a permit. I understand, sir. Thank you. Any other concerns by the board? We get this quite frequently, don't we? Quite frequently. If not, I'll entertain a motion. I will say that one more time. If we do not have any other questions or concerns by the Board, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that V-2008-89 Shady Hills developments appeal for variance to reduce the required reared yard from 25 feet to 14 feet to allow a deck to remain as built in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 2500 Treeline Way, Council District 6, be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the three conditions recommended by the staff, not including what was originally numbered number 3. Do I hear a second? Second. We have a motion on the floor and a second. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passes, 3-2. Thank you very much. Mr. Stout? Yes. Just looking at the order of agenda here, I'm not sure we took any official action on the Greek church when that was discussed previously. I thought we... Did you do a motion and all that for postponement? Hold on just a moment. I thought we did that, didn't we? I know it was discussed. I don't think we ever did a formal motion. What number is that again, please? Give me that number. On page 3, CV 2008-24. It's the Greek Orthodox Church? Correct. Do I have a, can I have a motion from the board to, is that postponed again? To postpone the Greek Orthodox Church proposal, please. Mr. Chair, I move that CV 2008-24 Panagonia Pantofilicizia Greek Orthodox Church's appeal for a conditional use permit to modify and expand an existing church involving demolition of one building in a single-family residential R1D zone, a property located at 920 Tates Creek Road, and a variance to increase allowable distance between the church and required parking provided at Cassidy Elementary School from 300 feet to 475 feet in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 1125 Tates Creek Road, Council District 3, be postponed again. Are we doing that for one month now? That's correct. Before we vote on this, what is the chance of, what are our other alternatives, considering we're that this is a continuation of a case that was heard so long ago. Rochelle do you? Obviously you can ultimately disapprove it or the staff recommendation I think was for approval on this. I mean you can act on it at any time if you choose to do so. Were they aware that this was being noticed again this month? They were, but they were clear to me when we met about a week ago that they intended to postpone to October 31st. Are they sending out notice every month to the neighbors? No, no, that's one of the issues here that we want to make sure when they're ready that we re-noticed, and they didn't have their re-noticed package ready for this hearing. So this has not been an inconvenience to the neighborhood around them at all? No. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor? I'll second it. And a second. All in favor of postponement for one month signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Jim, Mr. Marks, could you let them know that there's been this uneasiness going on here? Yeah, definitely. I'll talk to them about that. Thank you. We'll move to Case 2008-73, W.D. Thomas slash New Vine Baptist Church appeal for a conditional use permit to expand the church already constructed parking lot in the single family residential R1D zone on properties located at 4339, 4349, and 4351 New Vine Lane and 5067 Oversales Road, Council District 12. The staff has recommended approval, but we do have an objection. So we will listen to, you give your name, please. Tony Barrett, I'm here on behalf of New Vine Baptist Church. We will listen to your presentation, and then we will listen to the individual who has a concern. Okay. The New Vine Baptist Church was here last month to address their parking lot on the south side of their sanctuary, and there were several concerns addressed at that point. Following that, they brought me on board. I've been out to the site on a couple of occasions, met with the surveyor and engineer, And we're working on putting together the plan. I've drawn up a site plan. I've met with the Division of Engineering, Traffic Engineering, Building Inspection, and Planning. And I have a plan I'll present to you all. Basically, the parking lot largely functions as it's built from a circulation perspective. The bays are adequately dimensioned, 9 by 18 on the interior and 9 by 15 and a half on the edges to allow for overhang. Handicap accessibility is provided in accordance with all requirements of ADA, although churches are typically exempt from that but most of them oblige that for their members. The landscaping will need to be provided. The plan that I've passed out indicates areas for interior landscaping that will be cut into the parking lot internally and then on the edges. We have a guard rail along that right side. We'll have to label those parking spaces as compact because there's no overhang, but they're suitable for compact spaces and we're within our 25% allowable for that. So that'll work out well. With regard to, oh and the interior landscaping provides the required 5% and we'll submit at a plan showing landscape requirements for that. There's a lot of perimeter landscaping that's natural tree rows that will address a large part of the perimeter landscaping and then we'll have to come in and do some interior. With regards to the drainage, which was a large part of the conversation at your last month's meeting. Provisions of the landscape areas will help provide additional area for retention. We're going to propose a corner of the church on the right side where we've cut out the corner. We're hoping to put a rain garden in that area, have a swale coming down the property line to a larger basin in that lower right hand corner where we're going to have to lose some pavement in that area to accommodate the retention area. And then on the lower left, we have an extension of our property that extends down to Old Versailles Road. We're going to provide another basin in that area. So there'll be a series of stair steps down the hill and should address the retention and runoff concerns that were expressed at the last month's meeting. At the last month's meeting, we had a young man here who was concerned about his house that was sitting very, very close in the water drain area. Has that been addressed as well? Well, it will be. His piece is the triangular-shaped piece there, Mr. Beatty, and by essentially having the swales running down that property line, that will direct the water away from him. Ms. Granville is on the right-hand side of him. There's an old road that goes up, or a road that goes up between his property and her properties, and water runs down that road as well. And we anticipate having a curb to direct the water into our basin at that location, so it'll enter the system as well and should address her concerns as well. And these two residents have been advised of what you're doing? I met with Ms. Granville earlier during Yarl's meeting here today, and she'll speak as she wishes, but I've explained to her the proposal. The calculations have not been done, but I'm comfortable that in concept it'll work, and we'll just have to demonstrate to the engineer based on the engineering manuals that the basins can be sized and constructed to accommodate that. Mr. Beatty, I've not met with him. He did see me out on site, and I just told him I was helping the church, and he said, okay. That was the extent of our conversation, if that's a conversation. But by redirecting the runoff into the swales and into the basins, that should accommodate water coming off of our property and address his concerns as well. We have an individual here who would like to speak. She says that she's not in opposition. She has a question. So come forth, please, and give your name and tell us where you live. My name is Gay Granville Hoffman. I live on the old Versailles Road. It isn't depicted on this, but it's down the Stone Tavern Lane and a little bit to the right. This is great. I'm pleased. As long as engineering concurs that these rain gardens or drainage basins will work, I'm very well satisfied. The only issue that I can see, and this is not anything for me, but it has to do with Tim and Elizabeth, the Beatty, the young man that was here last month, is the fact that the lines drawn are not property lines. The guardrail, which is the line two inches in, say, from where the triangular line is, is the property line. So they're putting the swell or the drainage basin on Mr. Beatty's property. Is Mr. Beatty aware of this? I don't know. I just happened to, I've just had my property surveyed, and they've done it all, and I just, that was the only thing. And Mr. Beatty goes to the church, so it may not be an issue. I just wanted to make. Unless he has to walk in waist-high water getting to the church. That's true. Then that would be an issue. That's true. But the property line runs with the guardrail. But I'm very pleased. I don't have any objections. Thank you. Staff, I don't guess Mr. Beatty presented you with any concerns with this? Not since the last hearing. Staff, I mean, does the board have any comments or concerns? Well, I do have a question since this last testimony. Is the survey, is this drawing accurate or not? This drawing is based on the GIS mapping for the area. The deeds, most of the deeds for this area have no description of boundaries. I don't know what the basis of the boundaries are. We are preparing to survey what we can. Based on the aerial photography, that particular line with Mr. Beatty lines up pretty well with the tree line. that is, I guess, historically would define the fence or the property lines. There's a remnant of a stone wall that is pretty close to the proximity shown, which also gives me some evidence of a property line. And there's a portion of a fence at the lower right-hand corner there also at his property where the church property abuts. That is, you know, I'd be surprised if the guardrail is the property because the church installed that themselves. Well, in your opinion, are you going to have to do something on Mr. Beatty's property relative to where the water is going, or how it's going to go, or if it's going to stand, or what it's going to do? Based on my evidence in the field, I don't think we're on Mr. Beatty's property at that location, no, where that's occurring. Staff? Just a moment, sir. Just a moment. Staff, is there any possible way that we, from you listening to what I'm saying and you coming up with a condition, to where Mr. Beatty's property is not to be affected by this water control? We can work on a condition that would... Would you please? I had a question for Mr. Brock. in cases where like a stormwater management feature may go across partially a property line? How do you all address that? Typically in a situation like this, if you're dealing with private improvements for a development that are located on an adjacent property, we would ask for the developer to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner for those improvements to be made on adjacent property. It's not that it can't be done, but in these instances, we do want documentation from the adjacent property owner that he is aware of the improvements that are going to be made on his property, and he gives the developer, or in this case, the church, permission to do those improvements. Sounds like a condition to me. We have, yes sir, you want to come forth? I have some information. Come forth, sir. Give your name. Yes, sir. This gentleman alluded to some things that are very true, and I did a survey of the property, and I saw the property line. The property line was witnessed by Mr. Beatty and Mr. Beatty's grandfather. and there is an old rock fence there that is very close to the property line. The guardrail sets back at least 8 or 10 foot from the property line. There is a swell or a ditch going down through there that my survey will show. and the elevation conditions set forth by our agency there and so forth are okay. It says you have to have a three-foot difference in elevation. The survey shows that it's more than five. The slope of the land shows it's more than eight. I understand, and I'm not doubting anything that you say relative to that. I just don't want you to do this project to go through and then you get sued by your neighbor. The survey will show that the property line where it is, and it's pointed out by Mr. Baby and Mr. Baby's grandfather. I have this here, and I did the survey. So you don't have a problem with the condition? Not at all. Not at all. Thank you, sir. And it's well within line of what Abel Architect has pointed out. Thank you. Thank you all. If you all would write that condition where we could add it, I would appreciate it. Let me see if I can read that for the board. It would be in addition to the third condition dealing with stormwater management plan to read that no stormwater facilities may be placed on adjacent property without written permission of those property owners. That's fine. Is that all right? That's fine with me. That's just a protection for not only the property owner, but for the church as well. I hate for you to get this project going and then Mr. Beatty walk out of his door and drown. That wouldn't be very nice. So that's the very reason why we're trying to prevent things like this from happening. And I'm totally in agreement with what the church wants to do. But I think we need to make sure that they're not infringing. Period. With that, unless the committee has any questions, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend we approve C2008-73, W.D. Thomas, New Vine Baptist Church, their appeal for a conditional use permit to expand the church's parking lot in a single family residential zone on properties located at 4339, 4349, 4351 New Vine Lane and 5067 Old Versailles Road based on the staff's recommendation and subject to three conditions, the third being modified to require that the improvements for the drainage be on the subject property. We have a motion on the floor and a second. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passed. Thank you. Thank you. The next case we have C-2008-79 Morgan Properties, Inc. The staff has recommended approval but subject to eight conditions. we have one individual in objecting our question or whatever. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I represent Morgan Properties. And with me today is Ray Denny, who's an officer in Fairhaven Baptist Church. My folks are sitting in the back there. And Andy Holmes, our engineer from Midwest Engineering. And Megan Smedley of Morgan Properties is here as well. So this is Morgan Properties is the company that's building the church. The church is for Fairhaven Baptist Church, which is moving here to this location. And we met with Mr. Don Floyd, who's our next-door neighbor out in the hallway, while you were calling cases, and I think we've reached an understanding, but he's here, he can speak for himself. But he had had two concerns, and one of them was whether we could substitute use a privacy fence instead of a hedge along his property line, which is the right property line, which we have agreed to do. And I've got a proposed new condition 9, which would deal with that. If you could put that up on the overhead. What was the second? Well, let me just read this one. The proposed condition 9 is a six-foot wood privacy fence shall be substituted for the hedge along the right east property line behind the building setback line. And the other concern was stormwater drainage. Mr. Floyd made us aware, I think our engineer was aware already, but of some stormwater issues Mr. Floyd has currently on his property. and we noted to him that we appreciated his letting us become aware of that. We do have condition 7 on here, which requires us to file a stormwater management plan with the Division of Engineering subject to acceptance by the Division of Engineering. And Mr. Holmes, our engineer, talked to Mr. Floyd about those issues, and we understand that, and we understand that we may be required to do some retainage or detention along our property line when we submit that. That plan is required to be submitted prior to our obtaining a building permit and approved by the Division of Engineering. So we're aware of that, and we appreciate being made aware of specific locations on Mr. Floyd's property where he does have a drainage situation existing on there. And I do need to know for the record that our building does, we do propose to have a full basement in that church. It's situated so we can have a walkout basement facility toward the back. And I'm just noting that because sometimes when people go in to get their building permits, building inspection is unclear whether a building has a basement or not because you're not required to put that on the Board of Adjustment Development Plan. So I'm just stating that we do have a basement, so it's in the minutes for future reference if there's any questions about that. So with those two items, Mr. Floyd's concerns in our basement, we do agree with the staff conditions for approval, and we're asking you to add condition nine as a result of our discussions with Mr. Floyd. And at that point, we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Floyd. Here, please. After talking to them in the hall, I... Give your name, full name, please. Don Floyd, or Lauren Donahue. All right. After discussing the concerns I had with the members in the hall, I have no problems, no objections. We thank you. Staff is condition 9 approval by you for you. We were just going over number 9 and trying to figure whether or not that meant that there was not going to be any landscaping at all along that property line, or they were going to just add a fence? I don't think you can trade a fence and not have any landscaping. Well, I think we were going to, I think the ordinance requires hedge or fence plus trees. So we were going to substitute the fence for the hedge and still do the trees. I'm not sure there's any zone-to-zone screening here required since it's all AU up and down there so there's no zone to zone screening required. I guess there's a vehicular use area screening requirement there. I think we're allowed to substitute its hedge or fence. That may be true. We're going to check it really quickly. But our intent was to keep the trees that we had and just use fence instead of hedge. Excuse me. Mr. Seco? Mr. Secoe, on this, on them mentioning that there's going to be a basement under this building, that doesn't cause you a problem, does it? Not at all. Okay. And that's not a problem for the staff either? No, sir. Okay, thank you. We've also checked the vehicular use screening requirement. Mr. Murphy is correct. It's a fence wall or hedge. So fence substituting for the hedge is allowable under the ordinance. My memory still works. So the number nine would be accepted by the staff? Yes, sir, because my memory doesn't. Any questions by the board? And I'm ready for a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I would recommend that C2008-79 Morgan Properties, Inc. appeals for a conditional use permit to construct and operate a church with accessory parking in an agriculture urban AU zone on property located at 2265 Liberty Road in Council District 6 be approved with the staff's recommendations of eight conditions and the ninth condition being added by Mr. Murphy. Are you a second? Second. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye, please. Aye. All opposed? Thank you Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Case C2008-81, Jason Shear. The staff has recommended approval and has recommended six conditions. However, we do have an individual objector. So we will listen to this gentleman, and then we will listen to the individual that's in opposition. So if you give your name and tell us who you are. My name is Andrew Moore with EOP Architects. And I just wanted to go over a few of the design considerations we had, and then also we're working with the planning staff on amending the development plan. So I just wanted to hand out a couple of them. This case is appeals for a conditional use permit to allow live entertainment as a part of the restaurant expansion of neighborhood business B1 zone on property located at 303 South Limestone Council District 3. I just wanted to show first the property location. Essentially, it's surrounded on all four sides by commercial properties. And I've also presented this to the Neighborhood Association Board, and we didn't receive any objections. We didn't have a quorum, so we couldn't get an official letter of support. We'll go to the second slide. It's also on the digital. This is what we're currently working with the planning staff on amending the development plan, because on note three, the conditions notes the number of seat capacity, and that was based on 24 parking spaces. So we're working actually on increasing the parking count to 32. So currently we're working with traffic engineering and also waste management. This will be a – hopefully here soon will be an amended development plan. We'll go to the next slide. Essentially, the left-hand side is essentially what will front limestone, and then the bottom of the page is essentially what will front Maxwell Street. Essentially what we've done is the patio area is the bottom left-hand corner, and we essentially have that fronting limestone, which basically is across from Good Sam and I think Sam's Deli. The actual band will be placed inside the building. I don't know how well it shows up, but kind of right in front of the restrooms to sort of the rear of the building. They notice a kind of a stage area designated. So essentially what we've tried to do is insulate that as much as we can from the residential side of the neighborhood, which primarily exists, to the rear of the building. Board, do you have any questions? I do. Has this amended plan increased the seating capacity? It looks like it's quite a bit more parking. Yes, it will. Well, and like that case earlier where the notification was made at a certain intensity and now this increased intensity is brought up at the last minute, is that a problem? Well, I think if you notice the first staff recommendation, they basically allude to a development plan forthcoming. They say based on the current plan or one forthcoming. And also, this is basically just a conditional use with regards to live entertainment. It really doesn't have a bearing on parking capacity. That might be a good point. The notice letter, Mr. Grease, did not have any details about capacity or size. It pretty much just said to offer live entertainment at a restaurant, so it was fairly general. I'm okay. Also, I believe the 24 spaces would calculate out a maximum of 72 patrons. So that's where that count was coming. And I just wanted to note that we're essentially increasing that parking capacity from what was 24 shown on the original plan to 32. Yes, sir. We'll listen to the objector. Thank you. Yes, sir. Come forward. Okay, I'm Joe Bologna. I own Joe Bologna's Restaurant. I've been there for 35 years and feel very part of the neighborhood. I have no objections to any bar business going in there. My biggest concern is we're closing the entrance at Maxwell Street, and the main entrance and exit is on Jersey Street. If you're in that neighborhood and people have to stop to let people out on Jersey Street, so the traffic is sort of tight and bottled up in there now. and if you were going to the tin roof, if you were coming down Maxwell Street and Miss Jersey Street, I see a lot of people making wrong turns on all the different one-way streets, so they have to go all the way around and back to get back in the parking lot. I know everybody needs parking spaces, but if the traffic people really look at Jersey Street day and night, it's a little tight with parking on both sides. I wouldn't recommend the track people to really look at only having parking on one street of Jersey Street rather than parking on both sides. Let's see. I think there's just a little safety in traffic, So I'd like somebody just to look at that. Other than that, I have no object to any of the business part of it being there. Thank you. One thing too that I just wanted to note, that we are removing the driveway off of Maxwell Street, and the original plan that you all have shows a one-way entry off of Limestone. We're now working on that, making that a two-way. So there'll also be an entry and exit off of Limestone along with Jersey. So there'll be two entry exits into the property. Will that help your concern a little? That will help a little bit. The parking on both sides of the streets that we cannot address, that has to be something done with traffic. We can't address that issue here. but I do understand what you're saying because I'm up and down there quite a bit and I do see that but I think that comes under another area rather than what we are addressing here today Mr. Palom. Thank you sir. What is your feeling about that? Is that feasible for you all? Well, we really needed it to get the parking counts that we needed, and we met with traffic engineering, and they didn't really seem to have any objection to it at all. In fact, I think they actually kind of liked the idea just because of the proximity to intersections. Traffic, does that satisfy what you all are recommending to them versus what Mr. Joe Palombo had? I think the plan that you see on the handout is much better than what the original presentation was. The original presentation would have forced all traffic out onto Jersey, and that probably would not be the best idea. I think what you'll find now with the entrance on limestone now being proposed as a two-way entrance, probably three-fourths of your traffic is going to enter and exit from limestone. The other thing I'd like to bring to your attention that's somewhat changed since this map was made, what you're looking at right now, solid waste would literally have to pull in off of Jersey Street to service their dumpsters with their front loaders. In talking with the engineer that's working on the site plan, we have concluded now that we will leave the dumpster where it is, and therefore the dumpster will be serviced by the solid waste truck entering off of limestone, dumping the dumpster on their property and then he will have to exit onto Jersey. But he will not be backing up onto Jersey, which is probably one of the situations we try to avoid, particularly with larger vehicles. All right. Staff, do you have any other concerns? Other concerns? Or do you have any concerns? Board, do you have any questions? Then I will entertain a motion. Ms. Chair, I'd like to recommend that C2008-81 Jason Scheer's appeal for a conditional use permit to allow live entertainment as part of a restaurant expansion in a neighborhood business v1 zone on property located at 303 South Limestone Street, Council District 3, be approved as recommended by staff with the six conditions. Do I have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second on the floor to approve. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. What else we got? Don't see any. I think we can. I see one. I'll put that on. We have a staff item. I guess this deals with House Bill 55 training opportunity. I've heard those several times. Yes, sir. There is another audio conference a week from Wednesday. It will be at the Division of Planning offices. We probably ought to give you an update on your training probably in the next month since the end of the year is fast approaching. We'll be glad to do that. What's the title? Well, I can tell you I can't make that meeting Wednesday afternoon. It's when I tape my high school TV show on Wednesday. So will they have this program at another time? We tape them and we have the audio and the video. So we can come through and kind of send out the mic. Anyone else on the board be able to make this or not make this? I'll be able to make it. Do we, yes, is there some way that, or do I need, I guess, to let you know that I would like to come about 1 o'clock that day and look at some others? Let me go ahead. Okay. Okay, thank you. The next meeting will be October the 31st, 2008. right here in this chamber. Next is, we don't have any further business. I'll take a... Mr. Salley, I was disappointed that you didn't come in with an armload of new ATLEX copies. I understand that, sir. We have inquired with the GIS folks about getting that. I think that we may have to do some shifting of some funding to pay for those, but we are working on that and hope to have that done for you the next month or two. You're welcome. Again, we'd like to welcome Janice Meyer here with us. This is an education, believe me. It's good to have you with us. and we look forward to seeing you again next month. If there is no further business, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in motion. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. I dragged her from the jail Madam