Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bye.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

so

so so Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. I call to order the Lynchburg Planning Commission meeting for July 8th, 2026, and the first order of business, the approval of the May 27th, 2026, and June 10th, 2026 minutes. Are there any additions or corrections to these minutes? Second. All in favor?

Aye.

All right. Opposed?

Yeah.

That was for both. Okay. Yeah. Okay. The next order of business is the following hearing item, which would be the petition of RAA Enterprises LLC to rezone approximately one and 105 thousandths acre located at 533 Leesville Road from B1 Limited Business District to B3 community business district to allow the development of the site as a rental office space with parking in front of the structure.

All right, thank you, Vice Chair, members of Planning Commission. As stated, the purpose of the petition is to rezone to allow for an office with a parking lot in the front. Our future land use map currently recommends medium density residential use for the property. These are characterized by smaller lots, single family detached housing, duplexes and townhomes. The property is currently zoned B1, limited business, which the city's zoning ordinance describes as a district that allows for office, retail, restaurant, and service uses that are compatible with nearby residential areas because they are in skill with adjacent neighborhood development and have pedestrian-oriented designs. The purpose of the rezoning to B3, community business district, is to allow the development of the site as the rental office with the parking in the front, The parking in the front is the part that's not permitted by the current B1 Limited Business District rezoning, excuse me, zoning. Since one commissioner asked about it in an email, I'll share the same info here because for the benefit of the commission, the property adjacent to this, excuse me there, the property adjacent to this is also zoned to B1 and does have parking in the front. That property was developed around 2008, and when our zoning ordinance was updated in 2016, the B-1 district was expanded to allow for more uses. Because B-1 districts are intended to be located near residential areas, when we kind of opened up that district to more uses, that meant there could be additional impact on residential. So the requirement for making parking be behind the front wall was added at that time to make these commercial areas more compatible with neighborhoods. allowing the parking behind the front building line kind of allows for a transition between commercial and residential uses, kind of protecting those residential uses. Excuse me. Planning staff has concerns about rezoning the property for the sole purpose of allowing the parking in the front of the building when the B district is designed to provide neighborhood scale development near residential The property is bound to the west by town homes and a church. There are office uses adjoining the property to the north, and to the south and east, there are single-family residential uses. And while there are other commercial uses in the area with parking in the front, zoning ordinances can change over time, as they did in 2016, and physical change can take longer to see come to fruition. as new development or redevelopment occurs. But the ordinance was specifically changed with a vision of neighborhood scale businesses in mind. Having parking being located so that it's not so front and center helps those commercial uses fit into a neighborhood as well as protects the residences nearby. The city's technical review committee read this petition on June 16th. Planning Division recommends denial of the petition. As noted in the memo that was sent out yesterday, the petitioner submitted a proffer for consideration by the commission. The report was distributed prior to that proffer coming in, so it doesn't mention it, but the proffer would limit the property to by right B1 district uses. Thank you.

Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this petition? If you don't mind, State your name and sign in, please. Sure.

My name is Norm Walton. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. My name is Norm Walton. I'm the engineer of record and representing the applicant here. And quite simply, we are asking for only to be resumed to allow parking in the front. As Rachel mentioned, there are several businesses adjacent and even the church right across the road all have parking in the front. When this site was designed, the original intent, as you can see the entrance coming in, kind of is conducive to that layout, as well as the topography from Leesville Road to the back. There's a significant elevation change, and so the intent is to have a two-story building here. Dr. Anderson, the dentist next door, owns this business' property as well and wants to develop this. Since it's two stories and a medical services facility, it would be better and easier, we think, for the customers, clients, and patients if we have parking in the front and the rear for ease of access to both levels. The terrace level will be leased spaces as well as the upper space. So to keep this pretty simple, that's the intent of the request. We don't think this is an intrusion into the neighborhood since the church across the road and several other businesses adjacent have parking in the front. We think it'll fit in and look nice. We have a rendering in the package. I hope you saw that. Zach Baldrige is the contractor and an impressive looking structure. So if you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them.

I have a question about the entrance. I think I see, but I just want to verify where on the drawing is the entrance or where on the property with the entrance to this building be located?

So there are, I think it's five... And so there will be five front doors. You're speaking of the front door or the entrance to the roadway? The vehicle entrance. So it's going to utilize the existing entrance that's there. So we're going to connect to that entrance. So we're not requesting a new entrance onto Leesville Road. It'll be a combined shared use entrance.

Okay. Is there anyone or any other questions? Excuse me. Is there anyone here to also speak in favor of this petition? Okay. Is there anyone that would like to offer a rebuttal? Or?

And against? Speaking against? Oh, yeah.

Opposition. Anyone here to speak in opposition of this petition? Okay. So at this point, the hearing is closed. And commissioners, if there are any questions for city staff or the petitioner, please feel free.

I've got a couple questions here. So where it is common ownership, correct, even though there are two separate entities under common ownership, the shared parking agreement is not applicable, correct, Rachel?

If it's under common ownership, they don't have to record a shared parking agreement if they need one, although I think they probably are exceeding minimums on both.

Right. I was just looking at it because I know there's a shared parking agreement that unless it's under common ownership, it doesn't have to happen. So I was just wanting to check there. And I just want to explain kind of where we're at with the recommended denial. Where we are at B1 in terms of parking spaces required, there are a total where it is a shared parking space. There would only be a required amount of parking spaces to the total of 37. In the lot next door at 525, there are 53 spots. So we would have to have, we're actually over for those two buildings, even if they were sharing a parking lot. At 533, The parking spaces behind the building total 23. So you're already above the required number of parking spots before the shared parking agreement. Because it's two parking spots per 1,000 feet of floor space. So that equals 17. So in themselves, there's already enough parking spaces behind the building on that proposal to satisfy the B-1 agreement with the zoning that we already have in place without the parking spaces in front. So we actually don't have to do anything. They could proceed with just the parking spaces behind the building and be in compliance. Just wanted to clarify that.

You're saying that there's plenty of parking yet under the current. So I guess what's the appeal? Yeah, Norm, if you don't mind, if that's okay, coming back up. What's the appeal to have the request for the parking in the front?

And thank you for that. And Dr. Anderson has requested that many spaces. And the reason being is for turnover of patients. So if you have all of the dentist chairs, if they're all dentist chairs full of patients, they're there. The next platoon of patients will come in. So you almost need, I hate to say it, but double the parking on a dentist or doctor's office so you can rotate patients around. Dentist office, I think, are worse than a typical physician's office because they are so... I mean, we've all been to the dentist office, and you know how people come and go on a regular basis. So I think dentists are more... cognizant or aware or concerned about the parking and running out of parking as the patient turnover occurs. If this was a regular office complex such as a CPA, lawyer, or whatever, I would absolutely agree with you. But because he has a medical facility and he's marking this for a medical facility, he's asked for the additional parking spaces.

I mean, you guys are the engineer, and I just want to ask if there was any consideration given to moving the building forward to the street, and then you'd have, like, the lot that's in front placed in the back.

So the concern is the access. So if we have upper-level rental, lower-level rental, if we move it to the front, all the parking is in the back. And we could do that. But then that means, A, we have to have a common elevator at worst case, which increases expense for stayers or people negotiating a steep grade around the building. And being a medical facility and the likelihood of older people, people with less abilities, we're concerned about that.

And what about if you were, was there any consideration given? And Rachel, I don't know the rule in the ordinance, but I mean, from looking at the packet, it appears that the concern is parking in front of the building. Is that right?

Yeah, that's what's not allowed by the B1 district.

So that's why they're- So if, I mean, if they were to rotate the building, 90 degrees and put the parking like that? I guess what is the definition of front and how does that relate to?

So if the building were, like you said, rotated 90 degrees and maybe parking on either side to kind of the north-south orientation there, that would work. You know, we talked about that with the engineer. He felt like it couldn't work because of the grade of the site, I guess. So we did explore that option.

I'm going off of memory, and I think it's around about 20 foot of elevation change from where the sewer line is to where Leesville Road is at. There's a sewer line that crosses the back of the property. And I may be a foot or two off one way or the other, but that's generally it. It allows an easy basement exposure, so 10-foot floor-to-floor, but we still have a retaining wall on the backside of the lower parking lot to keep from grating over the sewer line. So I think it's about 20 feet.

I see about 25. like eight inch PVC line. Is that the line you're talking about?

Right. And to Rachel's point, you know, the contours are kind of paralleling leaves and rows. So they kind of stack down. So turning it 90 degrees. Yeah. Kind of makes it awkward.

Do you have comments? Anything anyone wants to add?

Rachel. So currently this is a, is this currently a wooded lot or has that been cleared?

It's mostly wooded.

Okay. And I think, correct me if I'm wrong on the stretch, right now what you have on one side is a commercial building, then you have the wooded lot, on the other side you have a house. And currently I assume, is that house located, what's the zoning where that house is?

That is R3. R3. Residential.

Okay, so somebody's apparently living in it. So is the city's concern is... primarily that this wooded lot serves as a buffer, or is it that moving from B1 to B3 is going to unpredictably move this lot into something who knows what down the road?

Well, so the intent is not to prevent development on the site. It doesn't have to stay wooded. It's B1. It could be developed commercially. by right, if the layout were different, right? The use is permitted by the district, but the layout that they have proposed is not.

So really, it's the parking lot matter.

It is, and my concern is changing the zoning to get out of the rule.

Permit that, yeah.

Yeah, and they have proffered the use to align with the B1 district, so I credit there. That is... helpful I think to limit the uses because B3 allows like drive-through restaurants and things like that.

Could we do a variance on the B1 in this case just to allow them to put a parking lot in the front instead of changing the zoning?

No. So variances have to come through our Board of Zoning Appeals. They have to find a hardship with the petition. So basically like there's no other way to develop the site. You could get a variance. But I think There are other ways to develop the site. It's just less convenient. I don't know that the BZA would be able to find a variance in that.

Can we do a conditional lease permit to allow?

No. The concern by planning staff, the parking being where it would be, though, right? Right, because... You're not looking for a way just to allow it. That's the concern.

Right. Well, and I think I understand where the commission's coming from as well. I mean, I think you understand that maybe the petitioner's position and the slope and, you know. I don't mean all the options. Yeah.

Yeah. It's either the parking lot existing or it's, you know, the fact of changing it from B1 to B3. If we change it to B3, then we open up a whole host of Pandora's box of other things that could be down the road. Is that right?

They have proffered that it would be a B1 use. That's the memo that was sent out yesterday. They had a late addition of a proffer. So it would be a B1 use if this were approved. Future land use says medium density residential, basically. So we're already kind of out of sync between the zoning and the future land use map. So I would say going in a B3 direction takes it further out of compliance. There is the possibility that a proffer could be eliminated later, but I think we have to focus on the petition at hand. So they would be limited to the B1 district uses within the site, but not the B1 development standard, which is the part that requires the parking be set back behind the front wall of the building.

What is a setback on the parking there? It looks like it's pretty close on the front.

20 feet off the property line. Yeah, it's 20 feet.

20 feet. And, yeah, that wouldn't really give you a lot of space to wrap around the side, would it?

future land reuse and this rule about no parking in front of a building in B1, is that, I don't know if you know the historical basis for that or not, but I mean, is that, if we were concerned about siting B1 next to R1 or R2, say? I mean, because... You know, I mean, it could be, I mean, I'm sure we have places in the city where there's B4 next to residential, right, I mean.

There probably are, yeah. Yeah, my concern is the use is already allowed. If we're changing the zoning simply to get out of a requirement, I don't think that sets a good precedent. You know, so like the B3 district that they've shown here has a 20-foot parking setback. B5, if they, you know, say, say another petition. And again, we should focus on the petition at hand, but I'm talking in terms of precedent. B3 has a 20 foot parking setback. B5 has no parking setback. Really all you need is a landscape strip and you can build right up to the property, property line. So, you know, the next petition comes in and they say, well, we don't want to do a setback because we want to use every square inch of our parcel for parking. we're going to go B5 just so we get out of the requirement. I understand the commission's predicament. It was tough to make a recommendation in this case as well. But I think we have to think long term. I think we have to think about the intent of the zoning change that, again, was intentional in 2016 where we said, OK, if we're going to open up the B1 district to more uses, like I don't think medical offices were previously permitted, if we're going to open that up to more uses, we need to make them compatible with neighborhoods because B1 is designed to be next to neighborhoods. So that's my thought on it.

So Eric is saying is even without the parking in the front, the proposed rear parking meets the B1 for the type of building square footage and so forth for its use, right? Is that right? Right. So to revisit that, I don't know what the I mean, you've got a site plan and everything, but I mean, and I'm just talking out of my hat here, obviously. I mean, if you move that building 20 feet forward, you could probably put another row in the back, but I don't know if that's feasible or not.

53 spots next door at 525, 23 on the backside of 533, so you're at 76 total spots. when the requirement would be 37 according to code. So you have 39 more spots than that is what is required under the current B1 and shared parking requirements. Even if there was a shared parking agreement in place.

Just so everybody's aware. For that particular property, yeah.

you know the comments someone like to make a motion i mean i i guess my rule of thumb is we rarely get petitions before us where planning staff recommends denial ironically we seem to be getting i think two today or one and a half um And so for me, it takes a lot to not support that denial. They don't do that very often. So I think there's always a good reason behind it. And so I tend to always, unless I can see a really legitimate reason for not following their denial recommendation, because that's just so rare to me, it's usually legitimate.

you know i thought that when i was looking at these also and um you know rachel brings up the point of precedent setting precedent moving forward so i think um given that you know personally i'm having a hard time supporting this design but um and there's yeah and there's a part yeah there's a way there's a way to do it way or the the optimal way but there's a there's a way there for that can be considered I think I guess I given that I go ahead yeah yeah just I'll make a motion for I'll just do it make a motion for approval of this this petition as presented in the city's packet. Approval. Approval, yeah. Is there a second?

So are we?

I think, so the issue is historically we've had to go back and vote twice, I guess. We had to vote on two motions. Someone made a motion for denial and I think the, the planning staff asks that we go back and make a motion for approval and then.

So you're voting, you're making a motion to approve the city's recommendation or you're making a motion to approve the proposed petition. Okay, yeah, okay.

I think we can. Yeah, so I would make a motion for approval of the motion as presented in the city's packet, which is denial, yeah.

Okay. Motion for denial.

Deny the petition.

Yeah.

So I'm looking for a second on the not to deny the petition. Unfortunately, I'm going to say it. Any additional comments commissioners might like to make? I would just agree with the concern around precedent, the fact that a city planner has thoroughly reviewed this, made the recommendation, and I think the intention behind the comprehensive plan should be honored here. All in favor of the motion? Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you all, you'll have a chance to present this in front of council as well, and I wish you luck. Next order of business is the petition of Edgewood, Commercial Properties LLC and Brent Ridge Properties LLC to rezone approximately 1 and 103 thousandths acres located at 5612 and 5616 Edgewood Avenue from B3 Community Business District to B3C Community Business District Conditional and R2 Low Medium Density Residential to B3C community business district conditional to amend previously approved proffers and to bring the current use of the site as a roofing company into compliance with the zoning ordinance.

The subject properties at 5612 and 5616 Edgewood Avenue contain approximately 1.1 acre. The purpose, as stated, is to amend previously approved proffers and to bring the use of the site as a roofing company into compliance with zoning. It was already mentioned this is partial recommend for approval, partial recommend for denial. The front page does say approval. If you go to the actual motion recommendation, I've clarified that both are there. The city's future land use map recommends low-density residential uses for these properties. These are dominated by single-family detached housing at densities of up to four dwelling units per acre. The existing R2 low-medium density residential was established in 1978. The existing B3 and B3C community business district zonings were established in 2001. The property at 5612 Edgewood contains a one-story commercial building constructed in 1985. It's approximately 6,800 square feet in size and is currently occupied by perimeter roofing and exteriors. Approximately 8,900 square feet of paving, which you can see in the aerial photo there, also existed prior to the addition of the gravel lot, which you can also see. The property at 5616 Edgewood contains a single-family rental residence constructed in 1944. The structure is approximately 1,400 square feet. Over 15,000 square feet of gravel has been added to the rear of the subject properties and on the adjacent railroad property to allow for additional parking and drive aisle for the commercial use. The petitioner has a lease with Norfolk Southern Railway for limited use of the railway property for this encroaching gravel lot. The petitioner and property owner, one and the same, was issued a notice of violation in October for installing the parking area, the gravel parking area and drive aisle. Without site plan, it did not receive permits. It does not comply with the previously approved proffer on the B3C community business district portion and is partially located in the R2 low-medium density residential district area. The properties are bordered to the north by residential uses, to the east by commercial uses, to the south by the railway property and to the west by more residential uses. While the proposed use of the property of 5612 Edgewood Avenue does not currently agree with our future land use map recommendation of low density residential, the property has been used commercially since 1985 when the existing structure was built. Perimeter roofing has occupied the space since 2019. The continued use of the property with the addition of the gravel lot should have little impact on the surrounding area. However, planning staff does have concerns regarding the expansion of the commercial zoning further into the existing residential neighborhood. Preserving and strengthening neighborhoods is a goal that's repeated throughout our comprehensive plan, and the potential for further commercial encroachment can alter the character and dynamic of a neighborhood. The property at 5616 has been a residence since 1944. The continued use of this property as a rental would have no negative impact and could provide a buffer between the commercial use of perimeter roofing and other residential uses in the area. The petitioner has submitted a voluntary proffer to limit the B3 district uses on the properties, but the continued use of this structure as a residence is not proffered. If the rezoning is approved as is, the residents could transition or the site could be redeveloped to use the property, the property with the house on it for commercial uses by the petitioner or by one of their by right B3 district uses that is not excluded from the proffer list. And that would eliminate the buffer between the commercial site and neighboring residences. The city's technical review committee reviewed this petition on June 2nd. Compliance with the zoning ordinance, including buffering and stormwater management, would be addressed at the site plan phase. The planning division recommends approval of the rezoning for 5612 and denial of the petition for 5616. Thank you.

Who is here to speak on behalf of the petition? If you don't mind, please. Sign it again and state your name for the record.

It evened in again. We got the easy one out of the way first. This one's a little more complicated. So Mr. Pantano, who's here, owns both properties and is the owner of Perimeter Roofing, which is the business establishment which occupies the structure of 5612. So last year when he was cited, Mr. Patana consulted with a contractor and asked to expand the parking. He actually asked the contractor, what city permitting do I need to have prior to doing that? And the contractor told him none since he was not entering the city right away and not asking for a new entrance. Mr. Patana took that gentleman at his word. as a licensed contractor and the work commenced. Obviously it was against city ordinance for land disturbance and then violated the previous proffers on the property, which Mr. Pitano was not aware of until he was cited by the city. He's had letters from the zoning office and been in communication with the zoning office Since the time he was cited, he contacted Perkins and Orson, and then we submitted a rezoning plan, and that's why we're here, to try to get this whole mess squared away. Mr. Pitana also has a lease agreement with the railroad to allow the construction of the parking onto the railroad property. um that's been provided to the city and as as evidence so that that is in place um mr patana has it runs a a well-respected business you've probably seen his advertisements on on tv and then billboards across the community and if you i hope you've had a chance to go by the The business is very neat, very tidy. He is not a nuisance to the neighborhood at all. And I think a well-respected business person here in town. And obviously, none of this was done in spite of the city or without asking the right questions. We're just here because a contractor made an assumption that was bad. Mr. Pitana also would like to keep the house as a rental. We did not proffer that it would stay an establishment, but for the foreseeable future, it will. He has a relative that is living in that house now, and he would like to keep it as a rental and possibly use it as people come and go from his establishment. If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them at this time.

Is that a lease encroachment easement? What is that?

It is a lease agreement for the use of the property. Yes. It is an annual fee that Mr. Paton will pay for the utilization of that property as a parking area. Okay.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Does anyone else like to speak in favor of this petition? Please come up, state your name, and sign in, please.

Yeah, my name is John Caldwell. I live at 5617 Israel Avenue. You need me to sign this, you say? Please.

Okay.

So you're directly across the street? Just about. I mean, from 5616, yeah. I'm the brick house, and Tom lives next to me in that gray house below me. He works for Phil, and he lives right there, and he goes to work with, you know, with everything too. Since they've been in that building for the roofing, Phil's kept the place really clean. He's always picking up trash from McDonald's and Waffle House, which that's a plus. What he's done to the lot and the house, he's improved it. I mean, he's made that place look good. I have no problem with what he wants to do. I figure the man owns the property. He should have the right to do what he wants. It's on that side of the street. It doesn't bother me one bit. So it's a nice neighborhood. I mean, everybody over there gets along. And he's helped me come over. I had a problem with my roof. He came over and helped me out with it. He's a really nice fellow, I mean. So it's just, like I said, when he cleared that lot and those trees out and all, I think it looks 100% better. And then took that fence down and got rid of those trees there and it was all weaved into the fence. It looks 100% better being open. He's made that lot look real pretty and he's kept the grass cut. You know, he had it fertilized and I have, like I said, I have no problem with what he wants to do.

Did they just recently, the house, the rental house beside it, hasn't that been, had a lot of modifications to that in the last year to two years?

About two years, I think. I don't remember exactly when he bought the house. but he's remodeled inside the house, redid the plumbing, redid the walls, you know, did a lot of work, put a new roof, put a new tin roof on the house. He's, well, he's got air conditioning units around it, so it's, you know, he's got air in each room in the house, so it's heat and air. He's made the driveway look really nice over there across the street. I mean, like I said, it looks really nice. You put siding on it, it looks good. So like I said, I have no problem. My home was a brick home. So, you know, it's, but that house, that house actually used to be on Ward's Road where the bank was originally. And it got moved down there when Mr. Nash sold the property. So that's what I was told. by my parents and everything. We've been there. I was born and raised in that neighborhood in 58. I'm almost 68 years old in about another few days. I mean, I got married and moved away and then got divorced and ended up moving back in the house. Both my parents are dead.

Thank you for sharing your voice with us. I think it's important that you are standing up in support of the petition. So I appreciate you sharing your thoughts here. You're welcome. Thank you. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak in favor of the petition? Yes, sir.

Hi.

How are you guys?

My name is Philip Pantana. You guys want me to put my phone number and address on here, too? Yes, I'm here to just represent the project and speak in favor of it. We've been there since 2019. It's served us well. We remodeled the entire, the 5612 building, we went in and remodeled everything. And I put a new roof on it. You know, the main reason that I wanted to add the gravel was I needed a service road around the building because all of our trailers were getting bottlenecked in the back. and it was causing a real problem. So I don't remember when I purchased 5616, it might've been three or four years ago. The reason that I wanted that property is because that whole grassy area where the tree is, all that's already B3, even though it's part of the residential lot. So it's got like basically half of it is already B3 and the other half is I think R2. where the house sits and I needed a service road. And so I knew that I would be okay to put a service road there. And so it worked out, but the B3 goes all the way up almost to the next to the residential home already.

So this is a dual zone property. You're saying B3 and R2.

The portion where the house is,

is r2 the grassy area between the house and the driveway is b3c i see the divisions on here on the overhead map so the so the vertical driveway coming down actually does fall in a usable space is that right the b3 but we just can't use the wrap around that goes behind the r2 is that right um so the driveway does fall into the

business portion um the part of the proffers that exist are in relation to parking so you know yeah maybe the driveway is permitted in the commercial portion however the parking is not permitted in that portion at all right now so is he parked are you parking in or using it just as a through through this is just as a

So the house, I see that driveway wraps around the back of the house there onto the same lease as the railroad coming along there. So I assume you're parking trucks there and equipment and stuff there. Is that right?

So you're talking about the area behind the residence? That's really just overflow for when we finish a job and guys come in at the end of the day, they just need a place to park their trucks and their trailers before they come pick them up. But you can't do that in that, right? Is that what we're saying, Rachel? Because that's R2. Right.

Yeah. Okay. okay so so the house is in violation but the the the through fare is not but the parking you know storage area is is that is that we're looking at i guess if the driveway was there without the parking if it were truly just wrapping around zoning may have looked at it differently maybe that part would not have been in violation but but the parking you know storage area is in violation right as well as i would say that part in the front is i mean that i don't care what you did before i mean it was my property i parked my trucks there you know until i got fined by the city you know but that being said it it is i mean if it's in the r2 then yeah you can't you can't put your stuff there but through fair yeah it looks like you can use that

Well, the reason that we requested the rezoning is so that we could continue to park those there.

Right, yeah, I see what you're saying. But you'd be rezoning that house to, yeah.

Yeah, right now I know it's, I don't think it's an official proffer, but if you added a proffer and you approved the rezoning, where the house would have to be, continue to be a residential, then as far as the future use of that would be restrictive of putting a commercial building on there because you'd have to keep the house as a residence.

Yes, as long as the conditional use is in effect.

And does that? Hey, Chuck, can we get through the public hearing part?

I'm sorry. I assumed we were there already.

I'm totally missing it. So, yeah.

Yeah. My apologies.

Yeah. I mean, do you guys have any questions for me about the history of...

I lose track of these things. Thank you, Dave. Okay. Hey, I appreciate it. Thanks for Dave's clarification there.

Get this back on track. I mean, I was enamored. I got to be honest. Is there, that's on me, I apologize. Is there anyone else that'd like to speak in favor of the petition? Okay, is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, at this point, the public hearing is closed. Commissioners, you are now offered the opportunity to ask any questions or follow up any of the conversation we've had.

I think you're right on track with what we're discussing. So if we were to recommend approval for the first part but not the second part, Rachel, what would have to change would be the overflow parking behind the house but not necessarily the access driveway next to the building.

I believe that's correct. Yeah. So that's what, and you would need to remove the, the parking storage area, whatever you call that.

And what does that mean? Remove? Do they recede it?

Do they, I mean, what do they need to take the gravel up and recede it?

Yeah. Okay.

Now, now what you might be able to do is that since you've got a lease with the railroad, I assume it follows where you put all that gravel, you know, that's still available. I mean, that's, that's zoned for whatever, uh,

So you're saying like split the parking?

Yeah, you just got to take that 20 feet off or whatever, and you can still use that lower section for storage, technically. Behind the house, or less than half the gravel behind the house.

Right. What is that? Go beyond intent?

I'm not sure that that would be the case. So usually when there's, I mean, this is a peculiar thing. We've got railroad right of way, essentially. I believe what would happen is if whatever's adjoining is kind of the zoning that, that right away absorbs, if that makes sense.

They are.

I'm not sure. I'm not sure how zoning would look at that. And I don't want to get into too many crazy hypotheticals because we can do that for a long time. But, um, Yeah, I mean, I don't know that that would still be valuable.

Could the percentage of whatever 5612 is and a portion of 5616, could that business, that B zoning, the percentage of that be increased for the lot?

I mean, can you...

Like say it's one-third business, one-third R2. I don't know what it is exactly, but I mean, if you were to increase the chain, if you were to make like an L-shaped business zone in the back, is that...

I wouldn't support that because you're still encroaching towards the residences.

It's a roundabout. I mean, it's a roundabout approach. It doesn't solve the spirit of the issue.

Really, I mean, truthfully, if you look at it, the angle throws it off. If you look at the overhead, probably 25% of that gravel area is all that can't be used potentially. So then you got 50 to 75% of that graveled area you could still use behind the residence as long as it stays in the railroad area, you know, because the railroad's got its own zoning and you've got a lease to use it for what you're using it for now on the other lot too. So I don't know why it would change.

Norm, did you guys measure that at all? Do you know that? That distance?

I don't have a bit to mention.

Okay.

Okay.

It looks identical almost when you're in the house, but to do that, it would get around.

The zoning question.

Yeah. Sorry.

Sure, yeah, come on up.

When we were measuring, I didn't realize that there was an offset from the curb You know, like when you look at the yellow lines from the curb, I was measuring from the curb back. That's why the gravel went further back than I had intended it to. I was trying to be in compliance with where the railroad land met and the yard, but I went over because I didn't know to take off that. What is the offset from the curb?

It's not a set amount.

It's not a set amount.

that's how I measured it. And so that's why I'm over. Um, but I think it's only around 10 to 12 feet because Kevin Henry was there and he measured it and it wasn't much. Um, you know, I think part of it is the water management. So some of them, I mean, we don't know how that's going to end up. They'd already said I might lose some of that anyway to try to help, you know, with the water coming down. Um, You know, what I wanted to avoid is I don't want to be a nuisance to the neighbors. And I don't want my trucks on the street. I don't want my trailers on the street. I don't want my trucks and trailers to be visible to the neighbors. So one of the reasons why I did what I did was to try to keep the neighborhood nice, because I don't want all my stuff everywhere. The other thing, too, is I have equipment and tools and materials that get left in vehicles. And the closer they are to the road, I've had loitering issues. I have I have homeless people living down on the railroad tracks. And so it's taken a lot for us. That's why I like someone living in that home, because I want somebody looking out. That's why I like John because John's neighborhood watch and he's always looking out for me. And so I would like to try to keep things the way they are because I think once I add privacy trees along that fence line, the neighbor that just moved in next door is a brand new neighbor. So to them, nothing has changed from their perspective. They just bought that house. So they wouldn't know the difference either way. As long as I put up privacy trees, they're not going to see the trailers and the trucks.

Rachel, can you pull up the overhead on the photo overhead? Can you zoom in a bit? Well, the one with the red, it's what, page 10 out of 16? Page 10? No, with the overhead GIS.

Looks like that.

have that i don't have that photo you don't have that okay uh okay so let's just use that one what i'm suggesting is basically what we're talking about is this is not a problem right this is the problem but rather than rezoning this this much more. I don't know if actually, just because

Yeah. Rachel, I think if you go to the site plan, it shows exactly. Yeah. I mean, you can see up there next to the trees, the ratio or the comparatively the little bit that's on the residential property versus the amount that's on the railroad property.

The bulk of your parking area is in the railroad lease.

Yeah.

Which you're using it for anyway on the adjacent parcel. So there shouldn't be an issue.

on the part that is currently B3 that your driveway is coming through. On this, you don't have that tree labeled. Is that tree planning on coming down? Are you planning to take that down?

I hate that tree.

Because you can take it down and you can use that space. I left it there because my sister wanted it.

Because she lives in the house. What kind of tree is that again?

It's a magnolia.

Magnolia. So the leaves don't... They don't go anywhere. They just stay everywhere, blow everywhere. And so it's a nuisance. But... I left it there because I also think it kind of hid things. Little cover. And it was some cover. My original intent before all of this happened was I had a landscaping plan in mind and I was going to like basically put privacy trees right along the gravel edge so that it protected the resident. To see behind it. Yeah, so that when you look back, you're not staring at gravel. But then when all this happened, I was like, okay, I'm putting all that on hold until we figure it out. So... Um, yeah, I mean, we wouldn't lose a ton there. I think the unknown to me is the whole water management thing, which was a big concern to zoning. And so, you know, I knew in my mind I was probably going to lose. They said anywhere between 20 and 30 feet of that area anyway, if they had to put in a swell and I'd have to grass it. If I have to do that. I just don't know how the guys are going to get in and out, like with trailers and stuff. I just don't know. Maybe we need to sketch it out and look at it just so I can understand how it would work. What I didn't want to do is have to expand the gravel on the B3 area towards the street where the magnolia tree is, because technically where the magnolia tree is, that's B3. Mm-hmm. So I think that the zoning is about 10 feet away from the side porch of the house. So that's how far B3 goes to the house. So I wanted to leave a lot of that grass just because I want it to look pretty. And I've invested a lot of money. I hired a professional to come in. They take care of the grass. I want it to be the greenest grass in the neighborhood. Because for me, it's about first impressions. When customers come to my business, I want them to see that we're professional and that we do things top notch so that they want to hire us. I think first impressions are super important. And it looks good. I've seen it. Yeah. I've seen the business. Yeah.

You haven't made a market in Brooklyn over the last few years because I think, was it a carpet operation in there prior to you? And then, of course, right beside that is where it used to be a bakery and a beauty salon. I guess the beauty salon is still in that building that's got the red top on it. Yeah. do you all own that too?

Or I don't, I know the owner. Um, it's kind of a multi-use right now. He's got the salon in there and his, his daughter, I think, you know, stores some of her cleaning equipment in there. Um, but yeah, I mean, I, you know, there were even when I first moved in behind the building, you're referencing, there was trash everywhere. There was homeless people living back there. I went back there and cleaned all that up. I pulled all the underbrush out. Um, And, you know, it's just something that's important to me. And I it's kind of a full time job keeping up with the property. And that's just been sort of my sort of my pet hobby that I do with the business just because nobody else is focused on it. So I'm usually out picking up sticks and trash and just whenever I come come by, you know, you just do a little bit at a time and somehow it all works out.

It's been a lot of improvement there. It really has.

Yeah, Central Virginia Flooring operated in my building prior. I know those owners. I'm good friends with the owners. I bought it from one of their parents who owned the property. Before that, it was another carpet place. I can't remember the name of it. Yeah, it's been a dolphin flooring is what it was called. And so it's been a carpet place for a long time.

I think it looks real good now. I traveled that road. two or three times a week. You'll be able to really add to that area.

I appreciate that. It means a lot because we put a lot of hard work into it.

Have you asked any opinions from the scan longs at 5620? I'm sorry, what was it again? The last, what I saw, the scan longs, I think are the people that purchased 5620. The house right next to 5660? Right. Have you spoken with them?

I have not met them. John has met them. Okay. I think they moved in, what, two months ago? Yeah, a couple months ago.

Yeah, I was curious if they had spoken with anybody and if they were going to be here today.

To be honest with you, it's just...

Right. Well, their lot lines, I mean, their property is only 50 feet wide. So I think part of the concern that is kind of here with the 5616 is if the entirety of 16 is B3, what's going to say in 10 years if you guys want to expand and you build quite a large building that encroaches much closer to 5620? I mean, that's a possibility at this point. So I think personally 5616 is a good buffer the way it sits because it does kind of keep that separation between the business and the community at that point in the neighborhood.

Yeah, I mean, I'm hard pressed to support a vacant lot being converted from R2 to B3. There's no way I'm supporting one that has an existing structure house on it. being converted from residential to business. And I think we've already discussed how the impact is not huge. And I think planning staff has done a nice job of splitting the petition, supporting part of it and not supporting the other part. And I support the way it's being presented.

I agree. First blush, the zoning issue at the back of that residential property looks like it probably, the resolution might not be as difficult as it seems. Maybe just get rid of that. So I'm going to make a motion. We approve the petition to rezone 5612 Edgewood Avenue from B3 to B3C and deny the petition to rezone 5616 Edgewood from R2 to B3C consistent with what the city has recommended.

Are there any additional comments? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you all, and again, you'll have an opportunity to present this in front of council, so we appreciate your time. Any other business?

None today. You will not have a meeting in two weeks.

We will not?

We will not. Enjoy your summer break.

Okay.

Motion to adjourn?

All right, meeting's adjourned. Thank you all.

Bye.