 you want to hold on to that. It's the only thing on it. And then, right next to me, my immediate left is Reggie McKnight. to my immediate right as Marcellus Promise and to his right as Jenna Stevens and to my far right as George Schaefer. I'd also like to introduce the staff that assists the board, Rachel Bailey, zoning administrator and Hope Hasty, deputy zoning administrator and Andrea Wolfe, she's the land use board coordinator. The board is charged with hearing applications for special exceptions, variances and administrative appeals. All testimony is recorded for the record and anyone wishing to speak will need to be sworn in and come to the podium to speak. No testimony can be taken from the floor. When you come to the podium, state your name and please speak clearly into the microphone because the meeting is being recorded. Applicants with cases before the board are allowed at a presentation time of 10 minutes. This also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the board or staff regarding the case. Any member of the public may address the board in intervals of three minutes or five minutes if the spokesperson is established by a group. The applicant then has five minutes for rebuttal and the board reserves the right to amend these limits on a case-by-case basis. Those of you who plan to speak must be sworn. So if you're here to speak as an applicant or to speak in any case, please stand at this time and raise your right hand. Do you affirm or test the testimony you will give today is the truth and nothing but the truth. This time I'd like to turn the meeting over to Ms. Bailey. The board is owning appeals 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 general public wants to discuss an item that is on the consent agenda, that item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the meeting. The board then approves the remaining consent agenda items with one motion. The consent agenda today begins with the approval of the September 11th, 2018 minutes. Then we have item number two, case 2018-0076 for 2408 Clark Street, a variance to side yard setback requirements for an addition to a single family residence. Item number three, 2018-0077, 1736 Fry Road, the special exception to permit an alternative parking surface. Item number four, 2018-0078 at 3620 Wheat Street, it's a variance to the fence height requirement. Item number five, 2018-0089 for 2907 Stratford Road, it's a variance to lock coverage requirement for an addition to a single family residence. Item number six, 2018-0090 for 3400, 3406, 3412 West Avenue, as well as 1811, 1813, 1815 and 1819 Marshall Street. This is a variance to off-street parking requirement for commercial use. Item number seven, 2018-0091 for 2903 Blossom Street, a variance to the secondary front and side yard setback requirement. Item number eight, 2018-0092, again for 3400 or 63412 West Avenue in 1811, 1315 and 19 Marshall Street, a variance to landscape buffer requirement for commercial use. Item number nine, 2018-0094 for 1354 and 1316 Rosewood Drive, a variance to the off-street parking requirement for a car wash. Item number 10, 2018-0095 for 1354 and 1316 Rosewood for a special exception to permit a drive-through automatic car wash. If any member of the public or the board wishes to have a case removed, please let us know now. The board is getting ready to vote on all of the items just mentioned without further discussion, so if anyone wants something removed from that consent agenda, raise your hand right now or ever hold your peace. Thank you very much. I like to make a motion that we approve the consent agenda subject to all comments by staff as presented. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion carries. Everyone that was on the consent agenda, if your item was approved, you are welcome to leave where you were welcome to stay if you'd like. Right first matter on the regular agenda is item number 11, that's 2018-0079 for 6820 North Main Street, suite in. This is a special exception to establish a drinking place. I believe the applicant is here and they're welcome to come forward. So I'm here to bring forward a business called Icon Barn Lounge. Basically it's an establishment where we'll be selling food such as hamburgers, fries and shrimp, quesadillas, wings. We will also would like to serve alcohol, beer and wine. It's a place where people can come after work, grab a bite to eat, grab a drink before they head home on Sundays, Mondays and Thursdays. Come out and watch the games. We have seven TVs, projector screen, where those will be showing. Maybe one night a week we would like to offer karaoke for the community. Maybe one night out of the month have a live band such as a jazz band as such. Last night I attended the North Columbia Civic Club meeting, which was at Greenview First Baptist Church. So I met with the president Gloria Woodard and members of the community and I feel that I have their support in this business establishment. I've also gotten the support of Senator Scott, Representative Hart, Councilman Davis, along with the various business owners that are to the left of me that are also in that area as well. So I'm just here asking for the opportunity to show that because one concern that they did have was liquor. And so I know with liquor there's like a negative connotation associated with that. So I just asked them to give me the opportunity to show them that maybe a few bad apples out the bunch shouldn't spoil it for everyone and to let me prove to them that this would be a good business for their community. And if there's anything that I can do for their community, I'm willing and able as well. Okay. Any questions from the board? Okay. Is there anyone here to speak in favor or opposition to this application? Please approach the podium. My name is Craig Samson, I am a resident of Greenview Community. I actually work at the Pepsi Cola plant, which is at the bottom of that diagram. The reason I'm here, I want to get a clarification. You already answered part of it. If we're talking a restaurant with wine, I don't have a problem with that. If we're talking a bar with shots going down, I have a real problem with that. I work a super they call the super first shift three a.m. in the morning as the Pepsi Cola plant. I've lived in the neighborhood 25 years. So I have some history here. The driveway, now again, I don't know what kind of hours are. The driveway when they were different bar there in several driveway to the Nelson plant also to the Pepsi Cola plant filled with cars, which is a good thing for the neighborhood when we put the business is bad for the neighborhood business. Many times I've been out there three o'clock in the morning gunshots. By the time the police come, everybody gone. You might not know that. But again, I've been at Pepsi Cola 25 years. I've called several times when these things occur. Again, I just want to clarification. We're talking shots going down the bar. No, sir. No, I'm completely against it. We're talking again, wine with restaurant, round with beer, wine with dinner. I can support that. Neighborhood is very quiet now. The bars that were there are all gone. We don't have Oh, I'm sorry. We don't have neither the problems that we used to have. As far as police response presence of the fire department held a lot. Again, if we're talking one type of establishment, I can support you hold wholeheartedly. We're talking a different type. Not at all. Again, police response times after we have substation in Greenview. But again, you know, I know what has been in the past, right? I'm going to be questioning that. I just came to question what's going to go into the future. The signage popped up overnight and the latter really saw it, but that's just where it was. And I probably taken my time. Thank you for your your time, sir. Your testimony. I have a question for the applicant. Yeah, what are what are going to be the office hours? tentatively right now to the 12 probably on the weekend two to one. And I understand what he said as far as with the parking. We're not as big as the previous businesses that have been there are the landlord put up a wall. So the capacity limit has definitely decreased. So it's more of an intimate atmosphere than of you know, the larger crowd, I guess that used to gather there. I counted the parking spaces. I think it's roughly might be a little under 100. We have a capacity seating of 40. So I don't really see as far as parking. I also address that with the neighborhood last night. I don't see it being an issue. But if it was to become an issue, it definitely would be addressed and handled. And I clearly understand his concerns. Once again, I said, you know, I just hate for a couple bad apples to spoil the whole bunch. And there will be rules in place. There's no outside loitering. There isn't anything that was done to the outside as far as outside seating or anything like that. As far as music, we're not directly in front of the neighborhood or directly to the side of the neighborhood. So I don't feel that that would be a factor. As far as the drinking, like I said, it's not to be established as a the type of bars that you may see like in the five points area or anything like that. I feel like I've put a lot of time, effort and money into my business. And I'm only doing it to be successful. And I will never allow anyone to to, you know, not necessarily say ruin, but to, you know, take that from me. You will have security guards offices. Correct. Yes. Yes. And the age will be checked. No one. Well, preferably I don't want anyone under 25, you know, female, 28 male, because that's the type of environment that I would like to establish. So when you say 40, 40 seat capacity, does that include the bar? Yes, ma'am. Yeah. So if someone wants to come and sit down at a table and, you know, have something to eat, you know, they have table seating. If someone wants to come sit at the bar, like I said, watch the game. They have that as well. And I hope I'm not sure if I if I answered, you know, everything that you were concerned about. Area. Is that going to go forward? Because I understand that field off to the right. It's supposed to be supposed to be a housing complex. Yes. How does that come into play? I'm not I'm not mistaken. I must admit, even though I live, I live on the 5000 block of my parents. We have a few. We have some property right there. I don't know if they put it on pause. I guess you probably have to check. Probably check with someone in the city hall. My apologies. You might have to check with someone in the city hall because you're right. It's supposed to be a nice development. It's supposed to be a grocery store, a housing complex. Yeah. So I mean, that I must admit, I dropped the ball on that. You probably need to check well with Councilman Davis. I have what he said. Yeah, probably my fault. Well, you probably just go to somebody in the city hall. They'll probably probably go to go downtown, go right down the street. They'll probably answer that. That's something I need to I didn't look into as well. Yeah, I don't have nothing. It's just because of what I know has come on in the past. And I work right there. I live right there. But frankly, the neighborhood, we had gunshots all the time that we don't call the police. I'm just telling you, this is where you are. You might not know it, but this is where you are. And I'm just thinking, you know, again, wine with dinner, I got no problem with open bar shots like that. People have to park a lot. I got a problem with that because, again, I'm in the I'm across the street and I've experienced gunshots three o'clock in the morning. I have to call the police. And so I do as well. That's my only concern is that is trying to build the neighborhood up. Thank you, sir. I see the bar makes it down. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. We'll find out where you are. That's all. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. This Wilson, I have a couple of questions. So as a condition of your application being granted, would you be willing to make it a stipulation that you would not sell any hard spirits that would only be limited only to beer and wine? Well, that was sort of negate what I'm trying to establish. How was that? A bar and lounge for people to come in and, like I said, to I thought you I thought you said that you were only going to serve beer and wine. No, sir, I did. Yes. And we did. I did put in for my liquor license and the sign was on the door for the amount of time the ad was put into the newspaper. You know, if anyone wanted to dispute it. And then are you willing to limit your hours to 12 o'clock on weekdays and one o'clock on was it Friday and Saturday? Yeah, I think Saturday was the OK. Well, Friday and Saturday was the 2 a.m. Cut off, I guess, because that's the normal time limit is 2 a.m. to serve alcohol. Are you going to be open on Sundays as well? Yes, I think you mentioned 1 a.m. Earlier than 1 a.m. And that can be done for Saturday. I think that would be reasonable. So just so I've got this, you are willing to accept that a time that you would close by midnight on the weekdays and 1 a.m. on the weekends, is that right? So 1 a.m. instead of 2 a.m. OK. If you don't mind, do you have your application in front of you? Yes, sir. Would you go through the criteria for us on this so that we can have it in the record? I guess if you can give me a little more understanding of exactly what would you like me to describe and describe in what ways proposed special exception will not have a substantial adverse impact on vehicular traffic or pedestrian safety. Oh, OK. Well, like I said, there's not a residential area directly behind us or to the left of us. So I don't feel that there would be any vehicular traffic or pedestrian safety issues. And once again, there's abundance of parking spaces. So there wouldn't be any parking in the residential area. Once again, I know he had a concern with parking on the Pepsi Colise and if need be, I could I would have someone sit there to to not allow anyone to park there if if need be. OK. And then describe how the special exception will not have a substantial adverse impact on adjoining properties in terms of environmental factors such as noise, light, square, vibration, fumes, odors, obstruction of air, light and litter. OK. Well, the music will when well, when music is played, it will be held to a certain level. Like I said, there wasn't anything done to the outside. So there's no no extra anything. No music will be playing outside. I've spoken to my neighbors, the owner of the barbershop next to me, the owner of the salon next to the barbershop. The other restaurant owner, Papa's, and there wasn't any opposition to us opening. There won't be any fumes or odors or anything associated to that nature. OK. Describe in what ways proposed special section will not have a substantial adverse impact on the aesthetic character of the area to include review or orientation of the spacing of buildings. Once again, there wasn't anything done to the aesthetic character of the outside of the area. Actually, my husband owns a pressure washing business. And so the landlord actually had us to come and pressure wash the entire area right there for him. So there wouldn't be any impact on the aesthetic of it. And describe the ways in which the special session will not have adverse impact on the public safety, create a nuisance, condition detrimental to the public interest. Like I said, there won't be any loitering allowed outside. Security will be used as needed. And the drinking age will be strictly enforced. I also have a camera system in place where I can see everything going on on my phone at any time. There's a camera facing outside. So I can see the outside of the business to make sure that there isn't any loitering or isn't anything going on. I'll have someone in place each night to clean the parking lot if there's any trash or anything of that nature. OK, and then explain how this would not create a concentration or proliferation of the same or similar types of special exception uses in the area. I think I sort of understand this question. But the only like I said, the only other establishment in that shopping area is Papas in their restaurant. There aren't any other I guess drinking establishments, I think further up the road there may be. So they're so it doesn't create a not any other in this in this particular center. Correct. OK. And then explain how the the proposal is in character with the intent and underlying district indicated by the zoning district description and applicable zoning overlay goals and requirements. Well, I think I have got I received a copy of the zoning district description and I don't believe there were any zoning overlay district goals or requirements. I believe it falls in within the zoning area with a special exception. Because it's a drinking establishment. OK, describe how the special exception is appropriate for the location and compatible with permitted uses adjacent to and the vicinity of the property. Well, I sort of feel like we're just giving the community another option. Some place, like I said, where they can come and grab a bite to eat other than McDonald's, which is up the street. And we're creating a peaceful upscale atmosphere where they can come socialize and enjoy one another in a safe environment. And the permitted use is adjacent to and in the vicinity when I have somewhere to eat lunch during the day or grab a bite to eat before heading home from work. And then explain in what ways proposed by session will not adversely affect the public interest. Once again, I guess following everything that I've said previously. We're offering the public an upscale lounge where they can eat, drink, watch TV, relax after work. There will not be any loitering. Like I said, we have cameras in place. Security will be enforced. The IDs will be checked. And, you know, anything, anything that I even told the community, my doors are open if they have any concerns or suggestions. My ears are open and I'm willing to listen and answer any of their needs or questions. Very good. Any questions from the board? One quick question. Did you mean I think it's a good idea. Did you run this by the Oakley Community Council? I just wanted to forty one individual neighborhoods. I'm just asking. No, because Miss Woodard. Sorry, could you repeat that? I did not only because I was informed that I guess the Greenview area was who I needed to, you know, speak to. But I would have loved that. That's one of the neighborhoods. So that's good. Yeah, that's good. That's good. I would like to make a motion to approve this application with the condition that the establishment will not be open past twelve a.m. on weekdays and one a.m. on weekends and subject to the the written and in a verbal testimony of the applicant in all comments by staff. Second. All in favor say aye. All opposed. Motion carries. Last case on the regular agenda is item number twelve two thousand eighteen zero zero nine three for six twenty one week street. This is a special exception to establish a convenience store. The applicant's welcome to come forward. Morning. My name is Jake Moore and I'm an attorney here representing the applicant. I also have with us the proposed builder, Mr. Josh Boltinghouse, who would be available to speak after me if that is all right. I would like to note that I received this morning a copy of a protest from a civic group, which appears to me. The group has had very little of any conversation with our client in regard to what is actually planned here. Presently, my client owns and operates a convenience store, which is right next door to the proposed site. The convenience store, which is presently there is old. The building is old. The pumps and tanks are not old, but the building is old. And the you can see it, I believe, next door. The concept here is not to. Put in any new pumps or tanks. The pump is to decommission the building we're presently in. Use the present pumps and tanks we have. Demolish an older house next door and construct next door, a building which is aesthetically pleasing to be used as the convenience store. This will do is it will increase the size of the convenience store lot. And it will enhance the neighborhood by an all brick construction which is designed to be compatible with the architecture of the neighborhood. The this this property is located near the apartments, which used to be the mill and their 501 Whaley. The convenience store has been intentionally designed to have an aesthetic front, which is consistent with the overall look of the neighborhood and will actually enhance and improve rather than to track from the neighborhood. If you look at the design, which is proposed, it is aesthetically pleasing. It looks a whole lot better than the house, which is presently there. And it is quite functional. Obviously, if you close one convenience store and open one next door, you're not adding to the convenience store proliferations of the neighborhood. You're simply changing one building for another. And that's what this basically does. There has been some talk about the historical nature of this particular house, and the answer is it has none. It is simply an old house. I am told by the builder who is here that the idea of revamping or rehabilitating this house is commercially unreasonable. The house that is there has been abandoned for quite some while. It is old. It has asbestos. In order to turn that house into something that would be suitable for either commercial or residential use, asbestos would have to be removed. Heating and air conditioning systems, HVAC and all mechanical systems would have to be replaced, including plumbing. The house would be next to impossible to upfit to the handicap accessible in compliance with codes. So as we're sitting there, the house, which is next door, is for the foreseeable future, probably going to remain an abandoned house, which I would submit is not good for the neighborhood. The property that we're speaking of already has the existing curb cuts on to the main streets, so we're not going to be adding any additional traffic problems inside or out. The enhancement of the property will assist with additional landscaping and will add additional parking for the customers, which should be of some assistance. The property contains adequate sidewalk space and pedestrian walking areas. There will be designated loading and unloading areas, which will basically mean traffic flow will be improved rather than the present problems we have trying to do loading and unloading at a relatively small site. Traffic receptacles are going to be provided for customer usage. We have a good neighbor plan, which is basically in place. The property will be swept and maintained daily as it presently is. If we look at the particular location, there has been no problem with loitering. There has been no problem with littering. There have been no law enforcement problems with the present building as operated. The site will certainly make the area look better, function better and be better. There is only one operating business of the same type in this area, and that's the one we're closing. So if the idea of there going to be a proliferation of these businesses simply isn't there, there is no great concentration of convenience stores in the area. The location is presently zone industrial, light industrial, M1. I cannot imagine how an M1 light industrial zone would not support light commercial activities such as retailing, but we do have zoning, which is significant. It is obviously in a major business district on a major collector street. The lot next door, again, is presently operating as a convenience store, and that store will be closed. We will agree to that as a condition of closing that convenience store if that's necessary. All we're doing is moving from one building to another and hopefully improving the overall aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. There certainly is a need for this sort of facility in the neighborhood. Again, there are no added pumps, there are no added tanks, there are no added canopies proposed because we're going to simply use the ones next door, which we're already using lawfully and with no real difficulties. I've looked at a letter that was given to me by the Capital City Mill District, and it's readily apparent to us that they apparently don't understand what we're talking about. Apparently they believe that a convenience store creates a beer cave. There is no doubt that we will sell beer, and I'm not certain that having the sale of beer, which is lawful, is something that should create any form of significant issue. The property has sold beer for years without any major issues. Apparently the mill district wants to promote a healthy, wholesome, and safe environment. It was seen that improving traffic, improving aesthetics, improving landscaping, and improving accessibility to commercial property and industrial zone would do exactly that. Apparently, they says that the university students comprise a large majority of the district, and they are known to purchase alcohol using fake IDs and to binge drink. Well, I'm not certain that we can deny or should deny zoning based upon someone's speculation as to what may or may not happen. My clients have got a pretty strong, strong record in regard to their sale and control of alcohol. They guard their ABC license jealously. They have complied with the ABC laws historically, and I would submit there's no reason to think they won't do it in the future. If there are fake IDs somewhere, which I'm sure there are, I would assume that that certainly would not be a property owner's obligation to fix that. I would guess law enforcement would be doing that. We certainly look out for the fake IDs, and we have a very sophisticated system in place which checks the validity of the driver's licenses, checks the validity of the IDs. My clients have spent a large sum of money on a very sophisticated ID checking program, which will simply be moved from one building to the next door. It seems to work well. They indicate that there are breweries. There are two brewery outlets in the area. That may be, but those are on site consumption permits. We are not selling alcohol on site. We simply will have beer that people can buy as a package store to carry out as we will have Coke soft drinks. Hey, thank you, Jake, for your testimony. And thank you for being so very thorough. You've addressed all of the eight criteria. I feel very thoroughly in your testimony. At this time, I'd like to see if there's anyone with any opposition or affirmation of this application. Thank you. And before we get started on that, Rachel, I've got a question about we, when did we see this before? Was it deferred? Have been here before for a liquor store request. Gotcha. Understood. All right, thanks. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members. I'm Bob Guild. I'm the president of the Granby Neighborhood Association and appearing on behalf of the Capital City Mill District neighborhoods that authored the letter that I assume has now been included that Mr. Moore was referring to. We oppose the special exception, as you recall, the same applicant was before you for a liquor license, special exception for the same low count. The beer cave denomination is not our fantasy. It's included as a note in the site plan that was submitted in support of the application. They call it a beer cave that they propose. We believe that this facility fails to meet a number of the requirements for special exception, including the ordinance requirement to have an effective good neighbor plan. First, despite the fact that the neighborhood appeared before you and opposed the liquor license, we've yet to hear from Shivmart's owners. I've been available in the community. No other community leader that I know has received any contact from Shivmart to discuss their proposed plans. And when it appeared on the agenda, it appeared with the description that they intended to keep the existing convenience store and add a second convenience store, which would of course proliferate both the available inventory of alcoholic beverages and double convenience stores on adjacent lots. Fundamentally, this proposal is at odds with the capital city mill district plan adopted by both the city of Columbia and Richland County. We value the history of our community and we have fought hard to preserve it. The existing Shivmart convenience stores Mr. Moore acknowledges is old and decrepit and needs upgrading and we'd love to work with the owners to see that existing convenience store replaced by one that is of a compatible design, but not at the sacrifice of the historic fabric of the mill district community. To describe the proposed demolition as an abandoned residence is really an insult. It is a historic property. You can see just looking at the aerial photo, it's identical to the house next door and the historic preservation office with the city has assured us that it is a complimentary design to many of the bungalows in the larger mill district. It just happens to not be covered because it's between two neighborhoods, part of the larger mill district, one that does not have a demolition review requirement as it would if it were simply a slight distance left or right to be included in either mine neighborhood, Granby or the Whaley Street to historic districts. We believe the same problems that led to you to reject the the liquor license special exception are strongly applicable here. A beer cave across the street from concentrated student housing will produce a pedestrian and traffic problems. There will be a risk to life for university students dashing across the busy Whaley Street to enjoy the beer cave. It has obvious problems with the adjoining properties in the sense that it would cause the elimination of a historic mill structure in order to create a modern convenience store. It'll have a substantial and adverse effect on the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. The mill district plan calls for preserving and restoring and adaptively reusing historic properties. adjacent to the decrepit Chiv Mart is the iconic 701 Whaley Street. And it's a the pride of the neighborhood, a building that was going to be demolished that was saved and is now a key reused historic property in the community. Again, we would love to work with the owners to upgrade the existing facility, but not at the expense of losing a lot or doubling the capacity of alcohol and beer sales at at this location. And we urge you to reject the special exception for a variety of those reasons. Thank you. May I ask a question? So I'm looking at the site plan in the aerial in the in the house next door, and I'm trying to figure out, I mean, it really is an awful building. At this point, I mean, it's, it's, you know, I mean, it's a trailer, basically that sells, sells beer, and cigarettes and gasoline. But so I mean, I can just can't imagine converting a house of this nature into something like that. I don't know how that would work. But I wonder if it's possible for that to be relocated? I mean, is that a rather than tearing it down? I mean, is it a possibility? I'm just throwing that out there. And I'm trying to figure, figure out why, and I'll ask the applicant to come up and explain that. But why that that there. But if you'd mentioned several times in your in your comments that that you wanted them to rehabilitate the existing building, and I'm just trying to think is that something that the neighborhood, if they were able to save the house, get rid of the existing building that's there and and create a more properly historically designed building for the neighborhood? Is that something that the neighborhood as a compromise would be sees a compromise or is it just simply not not in the cards? Well, I just my first comment is we're you know, we are eager to work with a developer. We just haven't heard from him. And I'm just saying I've been in my house for 45 years. And I do recall an architect for a convenience store at that site meeting with the neighborhood many years ago, and a plan that never evidently was executed. But the short and long of it is I don't think it's it's consistent with the with the preservation guidelines the city employees, except as perhaps a last resort to take a historic property and move it someplace else. Rather that than demolish it, I agree. But I think that as you can see, it's an identical two identical houses next to each other that were built by the mills. And we really want to not have a, you know, sort of a gap in in the in the streetscape if possible. I appreciate that the Shiv mart bought the property, presuming, I guess that they're either going to get the liquor store permit or this special exception. But it's been actively rented continuously. It's not abandoned, except if the Shiv mart owner chooses to not rent it anymore. But there've been rental properties. That house has been actively rented until very recent memory. And I would just say our long term hope is that many of these rental properties will become single family owner occupied residences as they have been historically. But we lose that chance if we demolish it and replace it with a unnecessary convenience store where there is a lot with a convenience store right next door. So our preference would be to work with the developer to replace the existing store with one of complimentary design and perhaps the one they've already chosen, but not at the expense of losing a part of our community. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody else want to speak for against this application? My name is Joe Weeder. I live in the Greenby Mill Village. I'm also a member of the Capital City Mill District Alliance. I just want to finish up where Bob left off. And that is, you know, we've not opposed development. Anyone that's done any significant development in our district has come to the community and we've worked with them and we've done some pretty great things. Richard was 701 first off PMC with the mills. They wanted to block our view shed with mills apartments. We had them move it and we created a historic park. The commons there with a history park. So everyone knows when you sit there at White Duck and have a nice taco and you look at there's a beautiful campus there. That is what community involvement is all about. That's what we're looking for. We've never heard from these folks. All they want is to exploit these young kids who are getting blasted across the street. You know, and there is a beer cave, the corner of their thing. It's a beer cave. You know, and I can appreciate that. But, you know, also in our guidelines and our plans for the mill district, we wanted to recreate the commissary, which is where builder specialties is. We looked, we asked PMC to create retail so people can have a decent place to get a pizza, a taco, you know, that kind of thing. I mean, to develop the neighborhood in a decent way, not to exploit college kids. I mean, you know, there's you got to give something to get some and they're not doing that here. They need to design, work with the community to design something that we can all be proud of. It'll look nice sitting across from 701, which is a great, it's a, it's a location that people want to be part of for their events. I mean, why spoil that now? We're getting there. We really are. The district is really coming together. It can be a very special place. There are plans for a mill district art trail. 701 Gallery has received the James Knight Foundation Grant to have a walk through the neighborhood where people can come and ride their bikes through and see works by regional artists in the continues year after year after year. It's not a one shot deal. So there's a lot going on. Plus Pacific Park is right behind this gas station. Pacific Park, which is going to become part of if you look the mill district plan, will be part of the mill district greenway that connects the university, five points all the way to the three rivers walkway. So it's just a, it's just an opportunity to do something special and nice and not just a, you know, beer cave and, you know, and barf bags and beer pong and all that. Well, I, and you don't have to stay at Dodium. I just wanted to say that I get the beer cave, but I think they sell beer now. And I don't think they, I think they sell a lot of it. So I don't think that's going to really, just because you call it a beer cave doesn't mean you're going to sell more beer. But the, the, um, anybody else please would like to approach the, yep. Hey folks, Richard Burks. I'm not going to repeat some of the stuff that, that Bob and Joe have already said to shorten this. My concerns are that I'm an adjoining property owner and no one has reached out. So that kind of puts you back on your heels a little bit to say what could possibly be coming. Um, you couple that with a couple of months ago having to be up here and looking at the repurposing of the convenience store to, um, to a liquor store, you know, because you can't have your convenience store have the same entrance as your liquor store. So I worry, uh, I think my, my position is more that I worry about number one, this building being taken down and not being looked at holistically with the Capital Mill City, um, the district plan that we put in place recently, but also is this just a, a slippery slope of, or the next step is that the building next door, uh, gets taken out as well. So I have absolutely no problems with the convenience store being, we've been great neighbors, um, I just worry about how, you know, how far does the, does this go? And also being the property owner right behind them, they haven't talked to me. I'm not talking about across the street. I'm talking about the right there at the top of your screen. So that's my only concerns. Thank you. Thanks, Richard. Anybody else like to speak? Hey, good morning. Um, my name is Josh Boltonhouse. I'm the in-house architect for Bobbitt Design Build and, um, just wanted to come and talk. I reviewed the package you guys have and I think you have a very early, um, concept drawing of what the building would be like. And I brought an updated rendering of what we're proposing. I'd actually would argue it actually blends very well with the neighborhood. I've actually worked with Richard on his 701 Whaley projects in the past at a previous firm. So, you know, as an architect, I don't want to see history raised and the stuff demolished and, you know, we just kind of forget about where our past comes from, but then also kind of have to understand if we all just hold to a thing, we got to keep up there, then cities can never grow and evolve and, you know, architectures about history and its dynamic and even, you know, we tend to lump together, you know, historical architecture that, you know, back then was actually broken up in different phases and the people who liked the style before opposed the current style that was coming back and we just all call it, you know, old and historical. So, I'm a firm believer that architecture needs to evolve and designs need to be dynamic and reflect the time at which they were designed, but also kind of marry with, um, the parts of the city or country that have historical significance. And I, you know, the idea of, like, do you move the house, tear down the house, that's not an easy solution. Is it historical? Is it not? I'm not the one to say, but I think we have tried to come up with a design that, um, reflects the neighborhood with, you know, brick and detailing that kind of addresses the way things would have been designed in years past, but obviously, um, at the end of the day it is a convenient store. And I would say it's not really doing anything different than the current convenient store is doing. Um, yeah, we labeled a beer cave. Yeah, okay, but, you know, they have one now, it's small. So now they're taking three or four truck deliveries a week during football season, whereas now he's consolidated now, like, to one. So in a way, it actually makes it safer. You're not dealing with 18 wheels. You can see it's a tight site and it's no, it's not an easy way for larger trucks to get in and out making deliveries. So, and in a way, I mean, the owner's trying to, you know, make his business better. He's recognizing he has an opportunity for sales and growth and trying to do something that's responsible in both the design and the way his business operates within the community as well. You know, his concerns are, you know, he wants, you know, lighting on the building. He wants it to be safe and approachable at night. He doesn't want some, you know, slimy little convenience store, like underage kids come to buy beer at night. That's not what he wants at all. Can we talk about the building a little bit? It looks like it's going to be brick. Yeah, it's brick on all four sides. Right. And I have a, I don't know how with the process, I have a slightly better image than what you guys probably have. I don't know if you want to pass it around up there. Mm-hmm. If that's... What, what is that facade? Is it a cast stone or is it what, what... It's all brick. Apparently, we're posing two colors of brick. Right. Yeah, so you see, not a great image with the projector, but, you know, we have some brick banding and detailing. It's not just, you know, a simple brick facade. We put windows, try on the streets that address, on the facades that address the street. Also, we don't want a ton of glass. We don't want to incite vandalism where you can easily kind of throw a rock in or break it, but I'll, but, which is where the two high windows are. Those are kind of to our storeroom, which we wouldn't even necessarily need windows, but we try to put them high. So we try to address the issues of aesthetics and safety and obviously vandalism, potential vandalism. Okay. And I do, and I can't speak to communication back and forth between the owner and the community group. That's kind of outside the purview, but I think, you know, there is some dialogue between the two groups. I think we could come up with a solution that everybody's happy with. I think it's just nobody has talked to each other. So everybody's fearing the worst on every side. So I think that's what probably 90% of the issues are. Because I think the building is certainly an upgrade to what's there, and then I think it will mesh with the fabric of the community. And then, but, yeah, it's not a house and it wasn't built, you know, 60, 70 years ago or whenever the mills were built. So I can't change that. Thank you. Jake, would you like to approach a question? So I'm looking at the site plan and it looks like the existing building's staying there. No, you mean the existing, the existing? Maybe that's just because it's not shown, but it doesn't look like the construction shown is anything but a new building that doesn't look like there's any demolition or anything landscaping or anything on the existing structure. You say the existing structure, are you talking about the existing house or the existing building, the existing convenience store? The existing convenience store, the plans are that we're going to basically modify that building and turn it into something else. Well, I mean, with the hopes were a liquor store, but that's obviously not working, but we're going to basically, Josh can speak to that better than I can, but the idea is to try to remove, you know, Chuck, you're absolutely right. It's a convenience store. It's a canopy with a mobile home. It looks bad, it is bad, and it's been there since I was in law school, I think, which has been there forever, as long as I can remember, but the plans are to either remove that building. You come to the podium with Jake, if you like. Within our face for construction, we just have the new building in our scope, what the owner plans to do with the existing kind of, but we're not really trying to get into his operations on the existing building. That's, we're not really involved with that. The existing building, as I understand it, the existing building will no longer be part of the convenience store operation, and it is hoped that there can be some sort of modification done to up-fit it, to use it for an additional purpose, but at this point in time, it clearly is going to be decommissioned as a convenience store, and we will certainly commit to that, and the idea is to try to build a convenience store that looks and is part of the inherent architectural style of the community, and I was told by my client a moment ago, if they would like to move that house, we'll give it to them. I mean, they can have it. The house really is, and Josh can speak to this too, that house is just not, it's, you know, you might, you might be able to find a tenant for a short period of time, but the plumbing, heating and air, all of the systems in that house are simply not, it's got asbestos in it, it is not functional for the long term, it simply is not, it is not commercially reasonable, and of course you're talking about property in an M1 industrial zone, I'm happy to answer any more questions. So the, if they're decommissioning the existing building, it will for the short term, at least be vacant, while the pumps will still be used. Right. What would happen is you'd use the existing building until the new building is ready, then you move over and close down the existing building as a convenience store. It is no longer used, but we will commit that, that when the new building is occupied, the old building will be decommissioned as a convenience store. It will no longer be a convenience store. Exactly what we do with it is still open debate, but it will not be used as a convenience store. You know, my personal feeling is that, you know, this is the, this is a very special area in Colombia, and it's only getting more so, and I just personally don't feel like, you know, there's been enough outreach to the community, community involvement, I mean, the fact that there's no, nothing discussed about the existing building kind of worries me, because, I mean, it's still, I mean, you know, if the building is connected to a canopy that is connected to that, and because you, I guess you would be, I don't know what you could be, but I mean, it could be reused for some other purpose that, you know, I just don't like, I just don't like it. I would have much rather seen a whole plan that showed redevelopment of the entire site in a more aesthetic manner. There had been, you know, proofed out by the the Neighborhood Association, then they're just coming back up with a plan. That's my feeling, but I don't know if you guys want to consider withdrawing and giving it another shot, but I'm, I just feel like you haven't really met the, met the mark with this, with this plan. Any other comments from the board? I think, I mean, I think what Richard said, I mean, they're, I guess, fond with the current location, and I think the new building looks fine. I don't see why, you know, I think kind of to your point, why you couldn't redevelop that to look like this image, and back to the traffic. It looks like, to me, the current location has much better access on the corner with the light than where they're trying to go, so. I also agree that the community involvement would be key here, some interaction with the community association would go a long way. Might I ask, is there a requirement to ask for a special exception or is only is a requirement that you've got to go and approach the community? Is that part of the requirement? It's recommended. It's recommended not required. It's not, not what I would call a requirement. I mean, the cooperation we've had to date from this community has been bad. Is there a, if we just go knock down the house with that, with that being, I think we, I think we're in a position where we could just go do that, can't we? Yes, you are. What, if I might, I think what we may do is just withdraw and then just go demolish the house. That's probably our best bet. Um, well, we don't feel we have very good relations with, I mean, Chuck, with all due respect, I mean, I just don't like it. I'm not sure is the, when you have a zoning ordinance which basically says that convenience stores are disallowed everywhere, that begins to raise questions about the validity of the ordinance. And then when you basically come in and it says to you, the only way you could have a convenience store anywhere is by way of an industrial zone, which is what we have, is by way of a special exception. Um, and then we get dinged because a, we haven't done something we're required to do. I'm told in my address that I have responded to every single thing that I'm required to respond to appropriately in a, um, special exception. And then the response is I just don't like it. I have concerns with that. And I say that trying to be with the utmost respect, you have property rights in this country. And at some point in time we're told this is a historic house. What makes it historic? It's an old house. Um, nothing makes this house historic. It's an old house that has no use. We're basically putting back something which I think everyone acknowledges looks better than what is there and is consistent with the community. When we basically do those things that you require us to do, I'm not, and we're acknowledged that every single thing that has to be shown to get a special exception is there and the reaction becomes I just don't like it. Um, I don't think I just don't like it is a legal reason to justify people the right to use their property. This doesn't make sense to me. Um, I withdraw and we'll go back and talk to these people. Sure. Well, you know, I mean, you have addressed all of the issues, Jake, but I mean, you know, there's a, there's, that doesn't mean that, that you address them successfully. In other words, you know, uh, you know, the, the aesthetic nature of the neighborhood when you're talking about a historic mill district, that's, that's, that's a higher level, okay, than it is if you're in a commercial district, you know, that's not, that's not surrounded by historic houses. So, you know, you've got to, you've got to look at it from, from that standpoint, not just from the standpoint of, of, you know, you have the right to do it if you get the special exception and it, and you know, I just feel like that, that, um, you know, that's a, that's a major hang-up for you in this, in this instance is the intent of the district. May I ask a question of Zoning Administrator, if we just knocked the house down and turned that into a parking lot, is that okay? Is that, does that comply with zoning? You're not, you're asking, I'm not, I'm not the zoning administrator. Um, well, obviously, I don't have the votes this morning, so if I might, I would like to withdraw the application at this time and we will go back and make whatever changes we need to make to the ground and we will come back and we will see when the house is not there. Thank you so much. I would like to say just one thing, I think that it's, um, we asked people to come before this board and address very specific criteria and I think that if we are going to, um, deny a request for special exception, we should be clear about which criteria that their application is not meeting. I don't think we've done that successfully and I think we owe that to, um, you know, just saying that, uh, you haven't met with the community neighbors to me, that doesn't, that, that is a concern, but I would agree with you that it doesn't really address the criteria you've been asked to, uh, to bring to us, so I think that if we're going to not deny this, that we should say specifically it's this criteria that we're concerned about, just generally. Thank you very much. I, I totally agree with that and we have not denied this, uh, request and, and, um, this was just, this is just discussion. Um, I would love to ask you to do this for me. Instead of asking me to withdraw the request, if we might continue the request and give us time to meet with these gentlemen and chat, that would seem to me to make sense, because I would really prefer not to have to go back through the whole application situation again and you folks have been, as always, are more than courteous to me and I appreciate that. You would like to request to defer? If we could defer and we'll give us a chance to talk. I think they'd be great as well. We have more knowledge. Alright, so just so we're, we're all transparent here, my, um, two issues are three and six, which is the proposed special section will not have a substantial adverse impact on the extended character of the area to include a review of the orientation and spacing of the buildings and number six, which is the proposed section is consistent with the character intent of the underlying district as indicated by the zoning district description with any applicable zoning overlay district goals and requirements. Thank you so much. And can I ask for clarification? Are you meaning, is your concern related to the proposed design of the new building or the removal of the existing building or both? Both. Okay. If the board is okay with the defer, can you all make a motion? I'll accept a motion. Please step to the podium. In regards to the design of the new building, what is your specific, I guess, concerns or about the design of the building? I think that the most concern I have is not so much with the new building as it is with what happens to the existing location. More of the fun, the use of the existing, not so much anything to do with it. I just want to make sure nobody's, I don't sense any objection to the actual building. Well, you know. As far as moving a house, we don't know what we're doing with the existing. I think that, you know, I mean, and I'm not an expert to this, but there are experts sitting in this room right now that could be, you know, pretty helpful to you guys, and I'm not going to, you know, suggest what you have to do or not do, but I mean, I can say that the student housing complex, which was a pretty impact complex, was one of the best presentations I've ever seen presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals since I've been here and I've been here for a while. And so, and what they did was they incorporated their design with some, with not only just, you know, letting the neighborhood be involved, but they actually had very, you know, strong players with, with, with designed in the, for this type of business and they created a plan that everybody liked. And, and so it wasn't including everybody on the Zoning Board of Appeals that they had to approve, but it was a, it was a plan, it wasn't a popularity contest, but the plan was so much better than it would have been had they not gone back and gotten all that input. And so I'm just saying that that, I wouldn't be afraid of that, I wouldn't be, I wouldn't try to say, you know, well, Flup, Flup, you know, is the heck with y'all, we're going to do this our way or no, the highway, because, you know, frankly, you know, it really does need to be done right. And, and I just don't think this proposal really does it. I, I just, you know, can't imagine why you would leave that ugly trailer, you know, sitting there when you could increase traffic flow and you could, you could increase the, the landscaping, you know, and, and, and you're just going to leave it as is. And, and, you know, I just, I don't know, I just think that it's not very well planned in an area that it needs to be well planned in. Yeah, no, I understand all that completely. I just want to make sure there was, like, hey, go redesign the building, which is kind of in my scope. And I, and I will say just to address where you're saying, again, that's my world, designing masterplan, so I completely understand everything you're saying. But there is a significant difference between large developer with multi-million dollar projects and the ability to do all this masterplan. But what you're asking, like, a single owner to do is spend, like, another three hundred, four hundred thousand dollars. They don't have the capital and the resources that these large developers who, you know, grant, and the, the mills are done great. And, like, yeah, the purpose, yeah, I'd love to do everything, tear it down, shut it down for a year and a half, build it back new. That's fantastic. But then, today, like, you have a owner who has to operate a business, make a living, and there's a significant cost to that. And yeah, it's like, we, we all have these ideals. I have the ideals. I support everything you are saying. I love it. Yeah. The ideal solution is tear down what's there, build it back. But the reality situation, owner came forward to do that. And he's trying to find, like, the compromise between doing something responsible with the resources he has, tries to improve on what he has. He's got a great site for convenience store right now. Yeah. So it's like, in a way, he's being piled on, but he just hasn't quite figured out the next step. When in reality, he could have a plan for the next step is, but if it's five years down the road before he has the funds, is that any different than approving it now, with the understanding that something will be done versus, hey, I've shown this, but this is not like a one-two year event away. It's, in a way, you're like, you're just forcing him to spend money just so he could, I mean, again, that's kind of a larger picture issue. It's just something that, just to keep in mind as we go through these, like, you know, out-of-state developer with millions of dollars in capital, yeah, make them do whatever you want, but a single owner with limited capital funds, I mean, that's a lot harder to ask. So just throwing that out there. Thank you, guys. Thank you, man. So do we need to make a motion to defer it? I move that we defer 621 Whaley Street to the November Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Make it a second. Second. So motion to second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion carries. There is no other business on the agenda today. I move that we adjourn the October night, 2018, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Not second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion carries.