 I'd like to welcome everyone to the June 12, 2018 meeting of the City of Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals. My name's Chuck Sallie, and I serve as Chair of the Board. And at this time, I'd like to introduce the other board members. To my far left is Josh Speed. Next to Josh, Reggie McKnight. Then to my right is Gene Deakins. And then to my far right is Marcella's Promise. At this time, I'd like to introduce the members of the staff. I also assist the board during this meeting, Rachel Bailey, Zoning Administrator, and Hannah Slice, Associate Planner, as well as Andrea Wolfe, Land Use Board Coordinator. The board is charged with hearing applications for special exceptions, variances, administrative appeals. All testimonies recorded for the record and anyone wishing to speak will need to be sworn in and must come up to the podium to speak. No testimony can be taken from the floor. When you come to the podium, please state your name and please speak clearly into the microphone because this meeting is recorded. For those of you who plan to speak, you must be sworn. So if you are here as an applicant or here to speak on any case, please stand at this time and raise your right hand. Do you affirm or attest that the testimony that you give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? At this time, I'd like to turn the meeting over to Mrs. Bailey. Good morning. So I wanted to go over the meeting format briefly. Applicants with requests before the board are given a presentation time of 10 minutes. This includes all persons presenting on their behalf, such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. This time limit does not include any questions the board may ask. Any member of the public also has the opportunity to address the board. They are given three minutes. If they are acting as a spokesperson for an established group of three or more, they are given five minutes, but please make sure to state that before you begin speaking so we can adjust the timer. We will be using timers for that. It'll beep once to give you a warning that you need to wrap it up. You're about out of time and the second beep means that time is up and someone else will have the opportunity to speak. We'll start this morning with the consent agenda. The board uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion and vote. If a member of the board or the public wants to discuss an item, they can speak to have it removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda. The board then votes to approve the remaining items. The first matter on the consent agenda this morning is the approval of the May 8th, 2018 minutes. In the new business, we have item number two, 315 South Maple Street, case 2018-0038. It's a variance to the maximum lock coverage requirement. Item number three, case 2018-0039, 314 South Wackamaw Avenue. This is a variance to the fence height requirement. 4-2018-0040, 612 LaBruce Lane. This is a variance to the fence height requirement. An item number five, case 2018-0044, 170 Pontiac Business Center Drive, variance to Off Street parking requirements. So if anyone here would like to have any of these items removed from the consent agenda, please raise your hand at this time. I see no one. I'll entertain a motion. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the consent agenda subject to any and all staff comments. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. The first item on the regular agenda is old business. It's a carryover from last month. It is item number six, case 2018-0035. It's for 3421, 23 and 23 and a half North Main Street. It is a special exception to expand an existing residential care facility. The applicant is here and they can come forward if they wish to speak. The architect on the project, the proposal and what the request for variance is, and Rachel may need to correct me if I speak at a turn, is relatively straightforward. The existing group home has been there for at least 30 years. It's been existence for over 60 years. It's been a model neighbor within the community. To my knowledge, it has had no adverse comments from the neighborhood in terms of what it's been doing. And if you look at the picture, the middle lot of the three that are highlighted was referred to as the Daner House. That house was found to be structurally unsound. There were electrical issues, mechanical issues. There was a great deal of work that needed to be done to renovate that house. And so the Providence home made the decision to take that house down in order to build back something more conducive to the property. As you probably know, the North Main Quarter is being widened and a portion of their property is being taken for that widening. And so the proposed project is intended to better reflect the goals of the North Main Street area. Can you speak just a little closer? Yes, please. That'd be great. Glad to. The new design for the project, taking the opportunity because of this property, is intended to house several more men than were formerly housed in the Daner House. And in this process of replacing one building with another, the opportunity to grow brings us before you. And that is why we're here to request this special exception. It's purely a numbers figure. Our parking is covered. Our setbacks are covered. All of the requirements in terms of the drive lanes and other requirements are all correct and in order. And the only reason we're here is because that MX-1 zoning parcel number requires a special exception from you for group homes. Providence Home has been granted that exception several times over the course of many years. And so we're simply back to request the same. I will stand aside because much more information can be given to you by Rob Settle, the executive director. But we're here from a compassionate perspective and wanna stress that. This is an organization that is serving people in our community and serving them well. And it would be a shame if this opportunity was not allowed. This is Rob Settle, the executive director. Thank you. Thank you for having me and for Providence Home. Just a little bit of background for me. I've been a police officer in my past. I've been a pastor. I've been a high school principal. And now I am the executive director of Providence Home. So it's a big gamut across the board. I've loved every job I've had but this is the most passionate job I've ever had. I've seen men that are sidetracked and shackled by drugs and alcohol and seeing them turned around by the gospel of Jesus Christ. And I'm not ashamed of that and I'm really proud to see that we've been doing that faithfully for many, many years. And so one of the things that a lot of people are afraid of is that they think we're a homeless shelter. We think we're like Oliver Gospel or something like that where guys keep coming in off the street, they're coming in for meals. We're a transition ministry. And so we turn guys around hopefully with the gospel of Jesus Christ, get their feet back on the ground. We help them get jobs. We help them get housing. We get counselors come in to meet with us. And so all I'm trying to say is we're an organization that is stable and secure. We have night security. We have curfew. I'm just listing a gamut of things. We are strict in our rules. We have zero tolerance for drugs and alcohol. We have no loitering on the streets at all. We don't allow that. So all I'm trying to say is that Providence Owned can be trusted. We've been a good neighbor for many, many years, 55 years. And in those 55 years, we've only had four executive directors. And our chairman, Bill Cogdall, wanted to just say to you all through me that our plan is to continue that safe and secure ministry for many years to come. Are you familiar with the criteria for the special exception that was found in the application and do y'all have that with you? Would one of you gentlemen mind just going through those criteria so that we can have that on the record, please? I may defer. The criteria you're speaking of are as part of the application, is that correct? That is correct. There are eight different criteria that are part of the guidelines for meeting the special exception. This was included in the application. Yes, sir. And is the request that I read the criteria themselves in our response? That would be great. Yes, sir. Perfect. It's lengthy, so I apologize. Number one, describe in what ways the proposed special exception will not have a substantial adverse impact on vehicular traffic or vehicular pedestrian safety and how adequate provisions are made in the proposed exception for parking and for loading and unloading. In our response, a currently inadequate drive from North Main Street is being widened to allow easier access to and from the property and the North Main widening project is further restricting traffic to right in and right out access. The existing parking lot is being expanded to accommodate 19 parking spaces, which exceeds the requirement of 12 parking spaces. The current driveway is just left or right? The current driveway, you can enter from either side. As North Main is widened, they will restrict turning into it from that opposite side. Very good. Thank you. Number two, describe in what ways the proposed special exception will not have a substantial adverse impact on adjoining properties in terms of environmental factors such as noise, lights, glare, vibration, fumes, odors, obstructions of air or light and litter. In our response, the current and proposed use of the property remains the same. The greater bed count is being afforded through the construction of a new building, which will buffer neighbors from the internal parking lot, restricting noise, light, glare, and fumes, et cetera. And general activity of the residents referencing the noise, litter, et cetera. Is the parking lot lit? It is currently lit by a pole that is sort of central to the lot. The intent is to take that pole down and light it in a different way. It's an obstruction within the center of the campus. And so the goal is to relocate that. And all the new lighting will comply with the current ordinances. Number three, describe in what ways the proposed special exception will not have a substantial adverse impact on the aesthetic character of the area to include a review of the orientation and space of buildings. In our response, the orientation of the proposed building is designed to meet the new North Main Quarter guidelines by pulling the street-facing buildings nearer to the road and enhancing the intended public facade. The massing and spacing of this new building is in keeping with the guidelines of the DDRC and will buffer a new interior parking lot from the public right of way. And it's my understanding that this has been approved by the DDRC. Yes, sir. Number four, describe the ways in which the proposed special exception will not have an adverse impact on public safety or create nuisance conditions detrimental to the public interest or conditions likely to result in increased law enforcement responses. The existing curb cut is being widened to meet current regulations and the slope of the drive flattened it to as nearly as possible comply with grade change regulations at four curb cuts. This improved the interface of vehicles along with the activities of the city and street improvements will improve the safety of that area and allow more and safer access to the property by residents, guests, and public services. If I may add, I found out just yesterday that police have never been called to the Providence home. I know that's often a concern with group houses like this. The police have never been here. They've never been to services. Very good, thank you. Number five, explain how the establishment of the proposed special exception does not create a concentration or proliferation of the same or similar types of special exception use, which concentration may be detrimental to the development, redevelopment of the area in which the special exception use is proposed to be developed. I read this response. The intent of the guidelines of the North Main Court is to increase visual density and curb appeal through this gateway to the city. While this request requires a special exception, the encouragement of new construction as well as this level of density is in line with the goals the city has expressed in the new corridor. Number six, explain how the proposed special exception is consistent with the character and intent of the underlying districts as intended in the zoning district description with any applicable zoning overlay district goals and requirements. Our response, the proposal is consistent with the city's transportation corridor requirements in the properties, the of medium density residential or mixed use zoning, that existing apartment parcels similar to this one be made into a medium density residential corridor and that the streets gave reinforce a pedestrian friendly environment. The proposed parking is being concealed behind the proposed building, also a recommendation of the master plan and requirements of the guidelines. Number seven, describe how the proposed special exception is appropriate for its location and compatible with the permitted uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the property. The adjacent property to the North is a group home similar to Providence home is thus ideally compatible. The adjacent property to the South is a commercial business illustrating the value of the mixture of uses to the neighborhood. This parcel would function as a subtle transition between the commercial corridor of Sunset Boulevard and North Main Street and the existing residential properties to the North. Number eight, explain in what ways the proposed special exception will not adversely affect the public interest in our response. Providence home is an active service to the public of Columbia, promoting the self-sufficiency of dislocated men for the betterment of our city and improved and expanded facility is needed in this particular location is well suited to fulfill that need. Very good. Any questions from the board? Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would be here to speak in favor or against this application? If you'd please come to the stand. Were you sworn in earlier, Jim? Yes, sir. Okay. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, I'm Jim Daniel. I'm a commercial real estate broker just to sort of set the stage. I've handled eight transactions in the Cotton Town neighborhood in the last two and a half years. I've handled two within a block and a half of this property within the last couple of years as well. I'm looking actively for properties in this neighborhood. As I see this has a tremendous amount of potential in the future. I'm here in support of this transaction because a checking of the deed showed that they purchased the property in 1987. The residential care facility was 1994. I think that was maybe the first time the special exception came up. I'm on the member of the DDRC. This came before us. This was a worthy project from an architectural standpoint. This is only the second new building to be built between Sunset and where Main Street and Monticello switch off. It is probably the longest ongoing use of a property in this block on that side of the street. So I think, again, as the applicant stated, the police have not been called to this facility. I think it's all focused right there together with the woman's shelter and this shelter. And I would suggest that you support this. Thank you. Mr. Daniels, would it be accurate to say that you're pretty much a professional at specializing in this area as a real estate broker? Yes, sir. And you've been specializing in this area for my decade or so? Now, well, close to it on the Cotton Town area, this area, not as long, I was involved in Carl Solomon's purchase of his law office, which is three doors down and Socks and Freeman's purchase of their new office on Miller Avenue, and I'm chasing three or four more right now. Have you ever had an occasion where the use of this property has had an adverse impact on any of the properties in this area? That's what I'm aware of, no. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. My name is Janine Ellison, and I'm a member of the Hyde Park Kenan Terrace Neighborhood Association. First of all, I'm familiar with the Providence home and its mission, and I'm familiar also with a few of their residents. For example, two of them that I can mention, Reggie Alexander is part of their history for the Providence home because he was there. They helped him, and he went on to be a director of a veterans home, and he was helped there a little bit. Another person that I'm clearly familiar with is Chris Williams. He was helped very much. I mean, he enjoyed the program. He went on to Columbia International University, and from there, he's now living in Indonesia, working and spreading the word of the Lord. This home operated at this location without any incident for, I guess, for 30 years that we know of, and it's located in the boundaries of the Hyde Park Kenan Terrace Neighborhood Association. Our neighborhood met with the executive director, Mr. Ron Sellers. He came out and he shared his proposal with us. There was much discussion on this matter, and it was agreed that this case is very, I guess, situational in the fact that it has a history of being at this location. It's operating currently at this location, and so the community agreed to lend its support to this existing facility. However, there was three major concerns that were raised during the discussion, and the first one was the large increase in bed occupancy in this proposal, and the second one was in having such a large increase in occupancy, the concerns were how would this affect the North Main Street growth and development, and our city councilman Davis plans for the North Columbia District, and the third was how this zoning request would affect the major track of commercial property directly across the street from this site. The concerns were what type of business and redevelopment proposal would be attracted to that property with the population in question that would be resigning directly across the street from this track. So that was the three concerns that we had, but in closing, we still support the province home and its mission and the history. Our community wants to be very clear though. We feel very strongly that we have to simply saturate it with this type of home in nature in our community, and that I guess anyone else come before you, we will definitely fight them, because in checking the DHEC website, we find that 29203 have 20 care facilities, and 29201 have one, 29204 have one, 29205 have two, 29206 have two, 29210 have two, and 29229 have three. So as you can see, there was a lot of concerns that we just simply saturated with this type of facility in having 20 and everyone else have one or two. But just to make this, I would my story short or the Hyde Park Neighborhood story short, we support the province home and that mission, and I thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Anybody else like to speak? Yes, sir. I'm Lance Folsom. We've lived in Seminary Ridge for about 10 years, and in the last year or two, I realized probably that someone was there. Driving down to Publix at Elmwood in North Maine, it's obvious transitions is where it is, because you see all these people on the street and Christ ministries there, so they evidently do a real good job of keeping people off the sidelines. When I was on the Planning Commission in Jacksonville, Beach, Florida before we moved up here, one thing we looked at was police calls, and none have come to the property. But the reason I'm here really is because the North Main Street Business Association said they were against this. And that's a very credible organization. I don't know if any of you live in the North Main area, but they have done so much for our area that I really believe they would not come out if they didn't have something to base on. I don't know what it is. Has anybody checked Burger King or North Main Bakery Family Dollar to see if the residents of Providence Home have caused problems there? I'm not aware of any, I've been in those stores, and I'm not saying there is, but it's fine in that criteria seven or whatever it is on safety to say no calls to the area. My hats are off to them. That's a great thing. That's not the whole story. And as Janie mentioned, I didn't know she was gonna be here today, but I think what she said makes sense. It's a 66%, excuse me. Are you gonna ask a question? No, no, no, no, I'm sorry. No problem, continue. Anyway, it's a 66% increase, and I don't know what the increase has been over the years, but my gosh, what an opportunity to expand. So possibly that's the major concern of everybody. It seems like they're doing a good job. And when I was the homeless coordinator with HUD in the northern 36 counties in Florida, some of the best agencies we had and gave money to were the alcohol and drug abuse agencies. But on the flip side of that, you have a lot of duly diagnosed people. Nobody's mentioned mentally ill people. They can have a whole set of problems that the addicts and alcoholics don't have. So I don't have any idea that that's what they have there. And that may not be an issue, but there are things to consider other than what's been presented by the applicant on some of these issues. I would expect the business association to be here and bring up some facts that businesses have been bothered by the group. But I would say an increase of half that, 12 might be the best way to go and then come back later for another increase just to be sure that the facility, the staff and the whole thing is not over tax because we're on the upswing in North Maine and we want to keep it that way and we'd appreciate your help in helping us do that. Thank you. I have a quick question. Yes, sir. Now that you mentioned, what do you say to the fact, he said that no police were caught, there was no police incidents? No, that's very good. Now, do you want me to expand on my concern? Yes, sir. I'll tell you what, down there at the near transitions down in Elmwood in North Maine, there's a service station there. We saw on the nightly news, one of the residents came in there and started causing trouble and a female police officer from Columbia came in and he attacked her and one of the residents of transitions subdued him. That's the kind of issue offsite that you normally have. It's not so much on site, they're in full control and they have apparently a very good operation. They have well-trained staff, they have excellent rules. So this is what I'm talking about and if nobody presents evidence to the contrary, we can assume Burger King is perfectly happy with the Providence home. Like I say, I didn't even know it was there until about a year ago. That's good, that's good. Because then also I live exactly two miles from there and my parents, they have a few real estate properties and I think that's a great idea to have it right there, centrally located. I'm very thankful that they're bringing in men that want to change their lives and want to change the world. So I mean, I really think this is, I think it's a great thing for it to be there. It's a great thing and could I add one thing as a follow-up without going over my time? If you take 24 people or 12 people, you might get the guy that attacked the Columbia police officer who needs intensive therapy and help with his addiction out here to Providence home and help clean up the downtown area. So building on what you said, they seem to be great. If I was with HUD, I'd love to probably give them some money but I think they've done a good job. Thanks, sir. Thank you for your testimony, appreciate it. Well, my name is Steve Gentino and I live in the neighborhood. I live a half mile away. My wife and I have lived there for four years and we've had interaction with the neighborhood. I've been active with the Neighborhood Association, served as a treasurer for a while. Recently asked to serve on the board of Providence home which I've agreed to. Obviously I'm speaking in favor of it. The four years we've been in the neighborhood, we have heard no issues concerning Providence home. Like the gentleman said before, we hadn't even heard about it till a couple years ago. It's quiet, it does its job. It's not a transitions, it's not a Christ Central transitions, asking them to leave campus. They're meals served on the property so they're not leaving to do that. They're leaving for a job. Those that do have jobs and it's becoming a higher and higher percentage that do have jobs leave to go for those. I'll tell you, I have more traffic on my street going to jobs than they do. They walk a half a block to the bus station which is very convenient for them. As for the count, the count seems to be off here. When we hear the higher numbers, it's really the building that was removed had 12 residents. The new building is gonna have 24 residents. So 11 or 12 is the increase. Going from between 40 and 50 up 11 or 12. So I can't imagine such a complaint of no activity, no police activity, no problems with the ministry. At that number, at the 40 to 50 number and then all of a sudden there being an issue with 10 or 12 more. It is self-contained, it's a very secure property. They're doing a great ministry. It's been around for a long time. They serve a number of veterans and I think that's very important. I didn't serve the military. I don't know what the pressures are on folks that come out and having experienced the difficulties of service or even the horrors of war. But I think there's something that we owe to those men and I think the job is getting done very well by Providence Home. So the North Main Business Association, we met with them at their request, had a good long meeting with them and their only issue seemed to be the group homes in the neighborhoods. This is different. This is not a home out in the neighborhood, four or five men unsupervised living there. This is on Main Street, which is very busy to begin with, a lot more busyness going on with Family Dollar and Burger King than this facility. So that was their only concern that they expressed to us. Thank you very much for your testimony. Is anyone else here to speak on this case? I see none. Is there any discussion from the board? I think this would be a boom to the North Main Corridor. I think it'd be, I think it'd be a great thing to have. Heard a lot of testimony in favor of this request. I think most of the testimony in my mind has proven to us the fact that they do know what they're doing and are capable of continuing along and adding some people. It needs to be a well-fought-out plan that they've covered all their basic plans. Yes, I'm very sensitive to the fact that this area has more than its share of shelter operations. But I'd have to say that Providence Home is probably best in class of any operator in the city limits of Columbia as far as that goes. And I think that the testimony we heard today proves that out. So from that standpoint, this is definitely deserving of community support for what they do and they do it so well. I'm totally amazed that we've really almost gotten 100% approval of what they, how they operate and how they've been operating regardless of one's opinion about what's going on. I don't think anyone has said anything bad about the way this group operates their business and changes the lives of many people that need that. So with that, I would love to entertain a motion. I'll make a move, I'll make a motion that we improve this Providence Home special exception for the great things that are doing and the great things, I look forward to come. So subject to any staff comments and based on the testimony, based on the testimony that you had heard about it. Yeah. I'll second that motion. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. The first item under new business is item number seven. It's case 2018-0041, 1909 Washington Street. It's a variance to the front yard setback requirement. If the applicant is here, they can come forward. My name is Dave McColski and I'm applying for a front setback variance on a Washington Street property. We need a little bit of relief on the front setback. The property, we got cast into this role. My son is attending USC and we had a great deal of problems last year trying to locate some quality rental property. This lot became available and in that, most of the other vacant lots, you may or may not be aware of, the university has acquired and they just really won't let go of them. This property right here, if you're looking at the view, can you see what I'm seeing up here right now? That property is a little smaller. We were surprised to find that the front yard or street setback, which would include the utility setback, is so wide. Now we're proposing to put a house on there. I'm a builder in Charleston. The house is a, we have drawings that we've submitted. It's high level house, fiber cement siding. It's gonna house three college students. The houses on Cherokee, a few of them are college students. All the houses across the street on Washington Street from here are college rentals. So we're hoping to improve this area with this additional home. That view that you have right there doesn't indicate it, but if you look at the survey that I've given you, that survey shows the property that faces Cherokee and our home would sit behind that view corridor. So if you were looking down Washington Street, we would not be impeding the natural view corridor that was established here before we proposed this. So I'm a little confused. It looks like this plaid is showing a 25 foot setback on the front. Yes. So. On the road, the actual lot line starts that far back. There's a. Chairman, may I approach? I'll put my finger right on it. Well, yeah, I'm just, I'm looking at the center line, what it looks like the center line of Washington Street. And then there's a, I understand that. So you don't intend to, you want to infringe into this right away. This is not your footprint of your house. That I'm looking at. I understand. I was thinking that was the footprint of your house that was on the plat and that it was already 25 feet back. That's why I was confused with this little thing here. Gotcha. All right, understand. So, you know, just so we'll go through this, I think you've, you know, explained this, but let's go through the criteria in your application. Do you have those handy? This application here? Yes, sir. Okay. So you answered those criteria in writing there. Let's just, let's just go through those. There's six of them. Describe extraordinary exception conditions. Topo that pertain to the subject property. This lot has 2400 square foot with limits to develop it. So the lot is number one. The lot is does not conform. It's only half the size of a minimum lot right now. And it appears that there's additional 20 feet or so of setback before the road actually starts with Washington Street. This just basically, I guess it's part of the, the actual right of way in Washington Street. But it certainly is extraordinary and exceptional condition, right? Yes. I guess the city planners imposed a Washington Street from one end to the other many, many years ago. Our research couldn't find anything when this, this has always been 25, but I would think that the excessive width of the setbacks for Washington Street or future development, you know, maybe the street would be widened to four lanes or something, I don't know. There was a house on this lot, the lot next to it in the previous lot. We're not proposing to encroach on what was there. Those houses that were there, if they were still there would be within the 25 foot setback that we're asking for some relief on. Right. How the conditions don't generally apply to other properties or structures in the area? Army. I think you've covered that one pretty well. Number three is describe the way in which the application is a requirement of the zoning ordinance effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the subject property. Again, I think you've probably answered that one with the beating of the lot being so small, only about 2,400 square feet, sort of unusual situation. Describe the way in which granting the variance will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the public good. I think you've mentioned that you're not affecting the sight line going down Washington Street. You're not infringing on other joining properties ability to enter or exit Washington Street. Do you affirm that? Yes, I would. Yes, I would. And then explain why this would be the minimum necessary. I'm assuming you're a home builder and you have some idea of what you need to do for the width of your house. Is that why you need this setback? Yes, what we've done is we've maintained a three student property, my son and his two friends and we've simplified it and we're stacking it as a two-story and we're not gonna impede the off-street parking. We will have off-street parking even though we'll push the house all the way to the back of the lot and they'll be still enough for a car in the front of the property. So we won't impede off-street parking and we won't. So your written testimony is basically that with this variance that first floor footprint would be about 900 square feet. Less. Less than 900 square feet. Right. Okay. And then explain how the proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance that will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The Cherokee property region right there has, which we can see on the screen is been more and more developed along the lines of these college type properties. I build an extremely energy efficient, my name in my company is Near Zero Energy Homes, in that we use Sips Construction, Spray Foam, Radiant Barrier, yes sir. Oh, I'm sorry, Radiant Barrier. So the quality per square foot of construction will exceed the general neighborhood. Now going down Cherokee they are more and more, those houses are becoming college type rentals. And like I said, the one which you can see the car in the driveway across the street, that's a college rental, the Washington street that was just purchased, Don is a college rental and up the street. So everything on Washington street, you can see from me is presently college rentals. But you're constructing a single family home, right? Yes I am. So it's not a duplex, it's a single family home with one kitchen, et cetera. Exactly. And I have drawings here of the proposed home. Okay, it's. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Any questions, I'm sorry, to the board. Is anyone here to speak in favor of against this application? Any discussion from the board? This interesting case, the more interesting discussion would be how we, how a lot size, half the minimum width, half the minimum area was allowed to be created anyway. I don't know if it's some sort of a court ordered subdivision or something, but this is the type of case it'd be very difficult to do under our current zoning regulations. And as you place the setbacks for an RG1 zoning area onto this lot, it absolutely is a completely unusable, unbuildable lot. So this is. As bizarre as it's been existing for a long time. There's some lots like that scattered throughout the city that just. Exactly, so I guess I'll bring that up because this is the type of thing. It's very rare and you're left with a less than a 500 square foot footprint for a buildable area which no one's gonna be able to build a home. So this is the exact kind of case that I think is good to be brought in front of us and would be completely appropriate because without us granting relief for this front minimum building setback, you're never gonna be able to build a home here. So half of a 25 foot setback approximately to 12 is absolutely appropriate and 100% in favor of it. And thank you need this to do anything with this lot. So I think we need to approve this or else nobody's gonna be able to do anything with this. I totally agree with that statement. And I'd like to make a motion that we approve this application based on the testimony of the applicant and it's written application and subject to any of the conditions in the application that were presented by staff. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion carries. Next item is item number eight. It's case 2018-0043. It's 2469 Millwood Avenue. It's a special exception to allow two family residential use in a commercial district. Morning sir, morning. Current situation with the house now is, it's too large to rent to us. Would you state your name please? I'm sorry? What's your name? My name is Christopher Cox. Got Chris, thank you. Yes. Current situation with the property now is it's too large to rent to a single family. So what I was wanting to do is add a meter and divide the floors, add another kitchen upstairs. So it'll minimize the traffic because I've attempted to rent to individuals which would bottom my attention to creating a nuisance. So I just want to minimize the traffic, minimize the individuals that live in the property and just bring everything back up including a landscape plan on the outside and complete modeling on the inside. And I mean that's pretty much my idea. Just wanting to take advantage of the property but I'm open for any other suggestions that I want to take advantage of the property without creating a nuisance. Sir, are you familiar with the criteria on your application that you responded to? Or could you go through those with us? Describing which ways to propose special exemption will not have any substantial adverse impact on vehicular traffic or vehicular pedestrian safety and how adequate provisions are made in the proposed exception for parking and loading and unloading. I currently own the property in from Millwood all the way to the back of the Senate Street. Tenants would be allowed to enter from Millwood Avenue or Senate Street. Describing ways to... You own the property all the way to Senate Street? Yes, sir. Rachel, why doesn't that show up on the plan? It looks like it's... You own properties behind it? Okay, it's different properties behind it that he owns. It's a different one. See, the driveway goes all the way to Senate Street. For the actual property that the 2469 Millwood, that's it. So that's the property shown as... You own the property behind there too? Correct. You do? I do. So you own two lots? Correct. So you own two... There's two tax max parcels and one's not shown right there. Is that right? It's not part of the same... It's not part of the same property, though. So you don't own that. You may or may not have access to Senate Street. Currently use the access on Millwood and use the access on Senate Street. So from the front of Senate Millwood all the way back to Senate Street, if you... It's aligned a little different than what it looks like on the map. It's a clear shot. Clear shot through the driveway, side of the house, all the way back to Senate Street. Okay, do you have an easement across there? Do you have an easement or... I mean, how do you get access to Senate Street? Just coming straight up the back. Because once a house is there, it was abandoned house on that property. So what if somebody builds a house there and puts a fence up there? Well, what I planned on doing was fixing the whole entire area off. I wasn't going to use it for another home. I want to combine... I'm thinking about combining those, both of those properties. I'm really confused. So you do own two lots? I do own two lots. So you own the lot that goes all the way from the back of your house to Senate Street, that lot right there, that long lot behind your property, and you own the lot in the house. I'm sorry. That property, she's pointing that now. But it's showing like a little small corner of where they connect, but actually it's a lot wider than that. It's maybe about where, if you notice on the photo, it's a straight drive because that's what everyone uses now. I come through with the work trucks and the trailers. I just drive straight through the property. So I want to fence that back a lot in, that I could leave a gate where the interest can use that interest going in and out if need be. But I never had an issue going out and back and forth out of the middle of it. Do you have a survey of those two lots? I currently don't. For our purposes, I mean access would really, if you're looking at the access to the parcel, it would be off Millwood. So the 2469 Millwood, they actually drive for the subject property. I agree, but if you was willing to combine both of the lots, make those a single lot. If you own both of them and you're willing to combine them, I think that's a game changer on what you're trying to do. From the standpoint of having that all now on a larger piece of property, you're only on 6,700 square feet and you want to do that. But if you combine the other lot with it and have access from Senate Street, I think that's a big, big different ask than what you're, be for the single lot. So, but let's continue. I'm sorry. Describe which ways of post-specialization will not have any substantial adverse impact when enjoyed in properties in terms of environmental factors. Such as noise, lights, glare, vibration, fumes, odor, obstruction of air, light, and litter. The property is not intended for any commercial use. Neighborhood properties are used for commercial use and clothes at 5 p.m. Describing which ways of proposed special exemption will not have substantial adverse impact on the, what's that word? Aesthetic character of the area to include a review of the orientation and spacing of building. Any modifications to the property will be done in the inside other than adding proper exits to the second level outside. Exterior character of the home will remain the same. You're gonna add exterior stairwell to the house. Correct. Is there an interior, exterior well as well? That's currently an interior stairwell. So you'll have two access points from the second floor to the ground. And just to describe the ways in which proposed special exemption will not have any adverse impact on public safety or create a nuisance condition detrimental to public interest of conditions likely to result in increased law enforcement response. Property will be heavily marketed with surrounding community and price accordingly. Tenants will have a background check as well as credit check. Explain how the establishment of the proposed special exemption does not create concentration or proliferation of the same or similar types of special exemption use which concentration may be detrimental to the development of redevelopment of the areas in which the special exemption use is proposed to be developed. A house is designed not to attract nuisance. And by doing thorough background and credit check on applicants will help bring in more responsible tenants that are conscious of the community. Explain how the proposed special exemption is assisted with the character and the intent of the underlying district as indicated in the zoning district description and any applicable zoning overlay district goals and requirements. We are expanding the current residential use. So, do you live at the house? Okay, so it's a rental property from your standpoint at this point. So you're a single family residential rental on a C3, is it zone C3, property. Gotcha. Okay. Okay, I think I understand that. Any questions from the board? Is anybody here to speak in favor against the application? Would you approach the bench podium, please? Thank you. Good morning, my name is Femio Lilleno. I live in the community where this particular property is. I own 2476 and 2478 Senate Street. Senate Street? Senate Street, right behind there. Gotcha. I remember the driveway house used to be on that driveway. That's on Senate, that was facing Senate Street. Not sure if the staff had written by this property. They have. People already live on this property who are nuisance to the community. I'm sorry, would you say that again, close to the microphone? I say I'm not sure if the staff had written by this property. Millwood Avenue, the one in question that wants to be extended. People already live on this property. And these folks are nuisance to the community. After they get drunk, somebody gonna get hit right there on Millwood Drive because a lot of drunks and nuisances live there and some activities, they have opportunity to run through the back. So whatever you all wanna do with their property, we need you all to put the entire community into consideration. Right. Mr. Fox has good, we wanna see what he wants to do there. We need to know what is going there. So you understand that it is a permitted single family rental right now in a C3 zoned commercial property. It could be so C3 you can do all kinds of different commercial endeavors. However, residential use is allowed and with a special exception, you may do a duplex. So that would be converting this into two different homes. So it's a single family home now and he's proposed to convert it into two apartments, each with his own kitchen and each completely separate from the other so that you have the ability to rent to two families as opposed to one. You still may not rent to more than three unrelated people on either side of the unit and that would continue to be the case. Yes sir. Currently the house is basically a room rental. They place rents rooms at this time and that's a rental room place and we know what those things do to our community. That would not be, I don't think a permitted use as though it would be non-conforming if it was. It would be illegal to do that. But that's what it is at this time. Yes Mr. McKnight, I had a question for you. You're not saying it's a border, I should just say it's he rents individual rooms. I don't. You're saying he rents individual rooms. Do you have any proof? A lot of drunks in the neighborhood, a lot of crackheads in the neighborhood live in that house. I've been in that community since 1974. Yeah, my church is like about a mile and a half. Oh, let me ask one quick question. Has there been any incidents with the police? Well, cars have hit a couple of them around there. So cops have been called to the house? Vehicles. We've had accidents on Mayo Street around there. Can you unequivocally say that there has been the police being called to that neighborhood, to that active house before? Mr. McKnight, I live in the neighborhood. That's a yes or no? I live, yes. Okay. And we know a lot of the folks that live there are no strangers to us. So you have proof? You live in a neighborhood, you know your neighbors. Yeah. So there's evidence, you can prove, you can provide evidence that there has actually been a cops call there before. I didn't say cops call there. Accidents. Oh, okay. Vehicular accidents. Thank you. That's being caught being called. And Millwood Avenue is undergoing renovation. We're praying to have that. Okay, so just so I can be clear, it's your testimony that more than three unrelated people currently live in the house? Yes, sir. It is. And what would you estimate that to be or do you know for a fact? Let the staff ride by there and see how many people on their porch. It's quite a, quite a number. Not just occasionally, but every time. Okay, any questions? Thank you for your testimony. Is anyone else here to speak regarding this application? Would you like to come back up to the podium and address any of the concerns that have been raised? He's doing everything on his property. There's a template to change. I mean, some of the things that he did state about everybody hanging out at the property. That's why there's a change. That's why I want to change. Me, complying with the department where I rent, I got a chance to spend a lot of time at the property. And I did witness a bunch of traffic back and forth to the house. So I got with my wife and we were coming with our ideas to do something different. I originally bought the house in 94. The record showed 97. Originally bought it in 94, it was on the finance. 97, not financed. I raised three daughters in that house. So I have a lot of respect for the community. I do see the impact that that house and everybody that's coming around is doing. That's why I'm wanting to change. I mean, I'm not forced to do any of this. This is what I'm wanting to do. I'm wanting to change that whole area because at one point in time, my attitude was I want to hold on to the property until change comes. But after seeing that, I'm part of the change. I need to change first and change how that property is. If I expect everything to be different around it. I can't have a nuisance in the neighborhood. Like I said, I got a lot of respect for that neighborhood. I could have moved anywhere, but I moved there. And I moved from 90, I moved in the house from 97. I worked on it from 94 to 97 out of pocket. And 97 to 2012, I lived there raising my three daughters. So yeah, I'm just wanting to change it. I'm wanting to make it a whole lot better. So a person like that, he won't be ashamed. And I won't be ashamed. Everything will be like it once was because when I lived there, the house looked really nice. It was well taken care of. I mean, I worked on it for years to get it right because the house was burnt. It was condemned. And like I said, I worked on it for years until I got it right. But I don't like the direction that's going on myself. I really don't. So this is a tip to change it, to do something. Instead of waiting for big investors to come in that area and invest in it, and then I do something, I want to be the first investor. So you're the landlord. Are you affirming that there are currently more than three unrelated people living as tenants in the house because that's not allowed? That's a lot of people that live there aren't on the lease. They don't have a lease. A lot of people that's coming, like I said, it's a lot of traffic. It's almost impossible to keep. You have a lease with anyone in there? Or is it just a verbal? You have a written lease? I have a written lease. Who is that with? I'm sorry? Who is your lease with? I have Stanley Huey. I mean, how many people do you have? Do you have separate leases for them or one? I have separate leases. How many do you have? I have currently, I think, three, four, four. That's why I want to change the use. Number one, I didn't know about being in the city ordinances, about limiting the use of the property. I wasn't aware of any of that. Once I became aware of that, then that's when I bought attention to myself and making every attempt to make everything different than what it is. So that guy has every right to not be happy about the current situation of property because I'm not happy either. I mean, I actually feel like that, but I didn't want to come in here expressing my emotion about it. OK, well, let me ask you this. As a member of this board, if we approve your request to basically make this into a duplex, which would allow you to rent to six, in that house, unrelated family members, how do we know that we're not voting to allow you to make things worse in the neighborhood? Because I'm investing a lot of money, and I'm not going to put it in a situation where it's going to be ran down and ran through. And I lose money if the property goes down. And I'm willing to invest in adding another kitchen and everything, all these access ways. Believe me, the main reason why I'm doing this is because of my respect and pride for the community. That's the main reason why I'm doing this. I want to do something better than what I'm doing right now. I just want this to, and I'm over for any other suggestions, but that was just the option that me and my wife came with to attempt to better that area. Taradano's Fist is a great yard, re-landscape, cut all of overgrowth. I mean, just redo everything on that property. Just make it more appealing because a lot of people ride past the house every single day, every single day. And I was talking to my accountant. And she told me, I mean, because I really don't pay up. I wasn't really paying too much attention. Not like everybody else was, but she mentioned there's nothing in my attention. She was like, yeah, the house doesn't look the same. It's when you lived in it. And that reason for concern, because it's going down. It's really going down. So I want to redo everything and redo how that house works. Because right now, I'm not proud of it. But I could change it. And I'm not waiting for a big investor to come in and buy land around it and build stores and do this. I want to be the first person to crack that investment in that area and making it a whole lot better. But like I said, I told her I understand his situation. That's the reason why I'm here. Because of his situation, how he feels. And I feel the same way. OK. Thank you. When I ride past, I do see a lot of traffic. I see a lot of people hanging out on the floor. I see a lot of stuff that I don't like. But I can't rent it to just a single family because it's too big. OK. And then just so I'm clear that you do own the long lot that goes all the way to Senate Street in addition to this piece of property. Correct. And that you would be willing to combine those into a single lot. Correct. Would it cause an issue, though, for access if it was undeveloped? Or just access undeveloped. So from that standpoint, it could be used for access and parking for this, for the residential use. Is that right? Any questions or comments from anyone? A few comments. Appreciate your desire to do something better with this house. I think the testimony given by the gentleman before you does prove that we do have a problem. But I think you need to focus on cleaning up the existing conditions down a solid lease to some sort of a family. Because in my mind, just the fact that you want to split this into two different units with two different kitchens, I don't think that improves the situation at all. I think we could argue that that has the potential to negatively impact the situation. And I think the fact I'm concerned that you evidently have more people on a lease than possibly allowed. So I'll be honest with you. I do not think that this meets the criteria to allow a special exception to do this. I think you can clean up this house and improve the area by focusing on your current existing condition. But I think if we were to approve this special exception, we'd potentially open the door for a bigger problem. Like I was saying before, by the size of that house, I was the only way I was forced to be written that property out. But if I change the way the house is, then I can write the house up totally. That may be true. But in my opinion is you do not meet the criteria of the grant a special exception to allow you to divide this house. Based on the testimony of the applicant and your testimony. I have to agree with Mr. Dinkins. I think that if you had currently had a single family living in the house now and under one lease and you wanted to renovate the upstairs, I would feel a whole lot better about doing something. But currently with a non-compliant nuisance situation going on in the neighborhood and then saying, well, if we give you this duplex, you'll make things better. I'd rather see them get better first and see a commitment from you rather than to give you a special exception prior to doing that. That's the way I feel about it. So it's, I'd like to make a motion that we deny this request for a special exception. I don't feel like the applicant has demonstrated that he meets the requirements for the special exceptions to do a duplex in general commercial property. And don't feel like there's any way that we can put stipulations on there at this time that would make it worthwhile to be in conformance. So my motion is to deny it. I agree, second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Opposed. Motion carries. Item number nine, case 2018-0045, 1004 Pine Street. It's a special exception to change a non-conforming use within a design preservation district. This was an existing triplex. It was vacant for more than one year, but in a design preservation, you have 36 months in which you can come before the board and present and the board can grant a special exception upon a finding that the non-conforming use proposed is more in character with the uses permitted in the district than the previous non-conforming use. So it was a triplex. They are proposing to make it a duplex now. The applicant is here and they can come forward. Good morning. My name is Will Dillard. I'm with the Belser and Belser Law Firm and I represent Mr. Paul Hardaway, who's the property owner and applicant. I'm gonna speak briefly and then let him explain some of the specifics of what he proposes to do with the property if this special exception is granted. There are, we're aware of a couple of other properties that were recently granted a similar request under this same exception, going from a triplex to a duplex. And those are at 2400 Marion Street and 2229 Wheat Street. A couple of broad reasons we think of this property is also a good fit for this exception. One, if you look at the property, what's on other side of it, facing the property from the street, on the left side, on the right side, you've got a single family residential property which is characteristic of most of the surrounding properties in the neighborhood. To the left, it's a sort of a community center, is how it's been explained to me, owned by the Zeta Phi Beta sorority. And I think that's used for sorority events, but also community events. And it's a beneficial property for the neighborhood, but it's also a higher intensity use than the single family residences that are around it. And so I think that the use of this property as a duplex gives a good transition from the sorority community center to the single family residential that's on the right side of the property. Additionally, I think that based on the physical configuration of the existing structure, it's gonna be difficult to convert it and use it as a single family residential building. I think it would be very, probably prohibitively expensive to demolish it, build up from the ground, a single family home. And so the reality is, I think there's a danger of it, continuing to sit vacant and possibly creating a nuisance for the neighborhood if it's not converted to a duplex. Running through the criteria, number one, number two, vehicular traffic, pedestrian safety and environmental factors. The structure itself, it's already present, there's no adverse impact that we're aware of. There would be less traffic use as a duplex than from the prior use as a triplex from single family residential to a duplex, minor impact on the traffic in the area. And so we don't think that there's any significant impact for those factors. Is the structure currently leased? Is it currently leased? Yes. No, sir, it's vacant, Mr. Chairman. Numbers three and four, the aesthetic character of the area, public safety, nuisance conditions. Again, the structure itself is already present, no impact. I think it's about 70 years old. And so it's been there for a long time. Mr. Hardaway plans to upgrade the property. He wants to invest in it, improve the facade. And again, if it just sits there as it is vacant, there's continued risk that it could create a nuisance. Number five, proliferation of similar types of special exception use. There may be other triplexes in the neighborhood. I'm not aware of any, but certainly it's not the predominant type of structure or use. Most of these are single family residential. And so that's not gonna come up very often. Or this type of request won't come up very often. Number six, whether it's aesthetically pleasing or whether it's consistent with the character of the underlying district. Again, it helps establish a buffer. It improves the appearance if he does work on the facade. And we've included some of the language in the application from the design district guidelines related to preserving harmonious ways that diverse housing styles fit together. And I think that this meets that as well. Finally, number seven and eight, whether it's appropriate for the location compatible with permitted uses and whether it would adversely affect the public interest. Again, it will provide that transition from the higher intensity use of the sorority building to the single family residential on the other side. And it's a chance to invest in the property and reduce any possibility of long-term vacancy living forward. So with that, I'm gonna step aside and let Mr. Hardaway write information about what he plans to do. Thank you very much. Good morning. I just wanna go over a few brief highlights about our plans for this property. I had a chance to meet one of the homeowners in the neighborhood and talk with the Homeowners Association at MLK. And was pleased to find out the rich history of this particular area. I live in Columbia as well. I'm up a little bit further up by San Andrews Road. I'm certainly familiar with the Harder Street area and proud to be a property owner there. With this particular property, converting it to a duplex for us means taking the two units on either side and using those, there are three bedroom single bath each and using both of those as a duplex then taking the center part of the property and developing it as a common area. So we provide onsite laundry facilities, maybe storage for bikes, things like that, some property storage for us. When currently we're discussing the ability maybe even to add a bathroom since they are three bedroom single bath, if we have the available space we certainly wouldn't entertain doing that. As far as our development plan, take a lot of pride in everything that we do and we do want to upgrade the external with landscaping plan, cutting away the trees, painting, replacing the doors. We talked with the City of Columbia about trying to maintain the aesthetic of the community. On this particular home doesn't necessarily fit in with all of the single families but we can move a little bit closer since we've got to make some changes. We certainly would entertain doing that and plan on submitting a plan with your approval. One of the issues for tenants and neighborhoods, I think that comes up is what kind of tenants? I think that was kind of the issue from the previous gentleman that was up here. For us, we do want to have a professional management company. We want to make sure that we're reviewing the tenants before we provide leases for them and make sure that we're permitted. I mean, the City of Columbia has permitting requirements for any lease properties. So we do want to make sure we follow all those rules and that we have good solid tenants in place. In our leases, we do want to enforce any kind of nuisance issues so that if those are violated and City of Columbia provides those issues as well, if those are violated consistently then we certainly would terminate those leases because we want to reflect an up and coming professional nice place to live. For the interior of these properties, we do plan on completely remodeling there. The property's vacant now and has been for some time and we want to upgrade it with new cabinets, kitchen countertops, basically rebuild the whole property. It is a substantial investment on our part. We fill it's the right place at the right time and we're happy to do it and make sure that we are in communication with the community neighborhoods just to make sure that everybody's on the same page since there are a lot of single family residences there. That kind of concludes just the brief notes I have. I'm sure you have questions, I'd be happy to entertain them. I do specifically have a question. So it sounds like you intend to convert the triplex into two three bedroom one bath units. Yes sir, that's correct. And then the unit in the center which is essentially about the same size as the two three bedroom one bath units would be common area. Yes sir. And so the tenants would share that area. How would that be metered? Is it, I mean, you plan on metering that separately and charging that pro rate of back to the tenants? Are you gonna put one on one tenant or the other? How are you gonna do that? I think we would have to individually meter it. Of course, we can't make those kind of hard decisions until we find out what we're gonna be able to do today. But in essence, metering that separately so that we could have laundry facilities and have lights and things like that in there would be probably the right way to go. I just, it seems kind of problematic to me I'd feel a lot better if you were simply just dividing it in half and added a laundry room to each tenant or something like that. I mean, I'm having a hard time grasping the idea that it's two units that are gonna actually share a laundry room. I mean, I almost feel like you're creating a commercial laundry room that they can go in and use and potentially other people could use it too. You know what I'm saying? That would be locked access, you know, only for the tenants and certainly dividing that and looking at the plan. I've got just kind of a simple sketch of the interior here. If you look at the plan, what we'll be able to do is divide that up to some degree. But there are some structural issues with just drawing a line in the middle of a triplex that's built that way and just divvying out the room. As I said, what I would like to do is add bathrooms because I think that would make a lot more appealing property. But it's not quite as simple as it does involve an architect, an engineer and a structural analysis to be able to just, you know, because we've got load bearing walls in the middle of the property. So essentially each of those units is a little bit over 800, almost 900 square feet, but with a locked access to the inside so that either, you know, tenants on both sides could use laundry and storage, like for bikes and things like that in the middle and the ability to add a bathroom to each unit, I think will put us exactly, you know, where we need to be. Did I address any of your concerns or? Staff will be working with him very closely as well, being that it's a design preservation district, building code and then just the design guidelines will really play a large role in how it ends up being done. So staff will definitely work with you closely. Yeah, I'm sorry, we appreciate that. So you don't really propose to change the modifications of those interior walls at all? In a perfect world, what I'd like to propose to the city, you know, should we be able to move forward would be to essentially add a bathroom on either side for both of those properties and then have a common area in the middle. But I would like to stay away from structural walls because that causes a lot more construction, a lot more time, there's a lot more to consider. So I wanna minimize that if possible. But of course, this is a lot of speculation, we have to sit down and really look at it. Any questions from the board? Yeah, then that's just the layout as it is today. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor against this application? He is a good, he's a good stuff. I guess you're all good, getting tired of my bald handsome. Oh no. Right across the street from that property, it's where I live, it's where I live. The gray one has been in the family since 1904. And the other two, this is the property we're also on. I command you, Mr. Hadaway, for coming over, wanna fix up that place. One of the fools that made sure that it got closed down when somebody, a young man named Reggie, got killed there for over two dollars. You know what? Got killed, shot dead, right there in front of that place, over two dollars. Oh wow, over two dollars, did you say? Two, one dollar bills, okay? And since I live across the street, I wanna know what's gonna be in front of my house. I've spoken to the gentleman and I asked to see the plan that he has. I'm the vice president of the Neighborhood Association and I've been in that community like I stated earlier in 1974. So, we are happy to see our community grow. We just, we will work with the gentleman to see that what's gonna go there, we're complimenting. I'm the one who used to pay people to rig that yard because when leaves fall and when it blows, then right across the street to the front of, so I'm better off paying folks to just do that. But I've asked to speak with them and they're gonna come down to the Neighborhood Association maybe we're all gonna work to see that play again. And just for the record, would you state your name again for this month? I'm Femi Oluleno. Thank you so much, sir. Appreciate your testimony. I appreciate your. Does anyone else here testify? I have to say that, you know, I have to agree that, you know, even though it's still a nonconforming use going from a triplex to a duplex is a going in the right direction. Sounds like, you know, we've got a responsible developer and that, you know, we could, you know, willing to work with the neighborhood and address their concerns. And I think I feel like it's probably a good idea. I mean, absolutely. Fully believe that the applicant here has got a solid plan. And I think that if we grant him the special exception that I'm 100% believe that he can work out the details regarding that, you know, the middle unit and how that all plays together. I think that Mr. Hardaway's development here would be very much a positive good thing for this neighborhood or any other neighborhood. And I think that furthermore, as you run down the criteria for special exception, you could argue that not only does, would he not have an adverse impact on the community and the surrounding area? But I think in each and every case, it is improving the situation. So I 100% agreement with this. And I think that great developer, great landlord and I think this community and others would be very happy to have you there. I think you've got a great plan. Completely in favor of it. Any further discussion? I'd like to make a motion. Absolutely. I'd like to make a motion that we allow and improve the special exception to change the non-conforming use for the property on Pine Street from a triplex to duplex. Very good plan. Subject to any and all staff comments. Second. All in favor? All opposed? Motion carries. The last item to discuss today is just added to other business. Andrea, this was going to talk to you all briefly about continuing education. Okay. It's that time of year again. All our active board members and to remain on the board, you have to complete three hours of continuing education for board members who are already seated. Our two new board members are doing their required six hours and I've already contacted them. They've contacted me. I do have schedules that I will hand y'all. What we're doing this year is we're having the training before the DDRC meetings and then we're having some lunch which they'll be held here and then some lunch sessions from 12 to 1115 at our offices at 1136 Washington Street third floor. We were holding some before the planning commission however we had to cancel those. We do have a session this week at 245 before DDRC on Thursday. It'll be held here. We have one next week lunch session. It'll be at 12 o'clock to 1115 our offices June 20th. So if you'd like to come to either of those please let me know. And then we have other sessions which I will hand you the calendar so you're welcome to let me know. Of course you need to attend three to get your required three hours for the three existing members. Marcellus and Josh y'all are invited to attend any of those if you'd like to further your knowledge. If not next year you'll have to attend the three hours anyway. So what's up to you but I appreciate it. So just let me know and I'll give you the calendar. Roger you said there'll be one next week for the remit for the curb. We'll have one next week from 12 o'clock to 1115 at our offices. That will provide the one hour. It'll be one hour 15 minutes but you do need to attend three individual sessions. We're not doing them in three hour increments. That's too long to sit which I'm sure the other gentlemen know but so they're gonna be done in one hour sessions. Because I remember the email so I can do this prior because I'm gonna be extremely busy in August so I can do this next week. That'll just be one hour right. That will be one and you still need to do two more sessions. Okay. And I'll give you the calendar you can look at. Thank you so much. Thank you. Are you gonna email us something to Andrea? I did. I have been emailing some. I got those but the one I signed up for got canceled I think. It did. I believe you were gonna come to one of the ones before planning commission. We're having some mandatory meetings for planning commission members. Some work sessions that they're attending which you're welcome to attend if you want. We're gonna be discussing the zoning ordinance the land use ordinance. So but they are open to the public. They're only work sessions so no motions are made or anything like that. But the continuing ad I can resend it to you and I will hand you a copy before y'all leave today so you know. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion that.