Laserfiche WebLink
<br />rezoned and the response was that it had been a nonconforming use <br /> <br />in the past. <br />The Chair opened the meeting up to other statements from <br />remonstrators present. Ben Mendenhall of 102 E. Washington Street <br />spoke. Mr. Mendenhall advised that he owned other property in <br />this area and had resided in the area for some time. Mr. <br /> <br />Mendenhall was against a business use in the area since it is <br /> <br />primarily residential. He further pointed out that Clay Street is <br />very narrow and when cars are parked on both sides traffic cannot <br />flow in a normal pattern. He also advised that the alley became <br />busy from bank traffic on certain days and the parking in front of <br />the structure was very limited. He also stated that the one way <br />alley was not compatible to the parking suggested and pointed out <br />that the use did not meet the parking requirements as stated in <br />the ordinance. <br />The Board then proceeded to a discussion on the petition. <br />Bill Abbott stated that the property had a history of <br />inappropriate uses to the adjoining area and certainly this Board <br />should not perpetuate this. Steve Edwards stated that the <br />business use would be better than some of the past uses, but the <br /> <br />parking requirements for local business were not met and Clay <br /> <br />Street does present some traffic problems. Vern Kimmel stated <br /> <br />that he was concerned with the parking and the traffic. Dave <br />Barry stated that there were several businesses in this area and <br />that one of the reasons for the parking problems was the multi- <br />family uses where several vehicles were present for one lot. Dave <br /> <br />also stated that it was better to have the property in use with <br /> <br />-3- <br />