 15, 117, and 119. This is a special exception to permit a tattoo shop. Item number five, case 2019-0038 for 2225 Durbey Street, a variance to the off-street parking requirement for an office use. And item number six, case 2019-0039 for 1346 Kingston Road, a variance to the fence height requirement in the front yard setback. Very good. So just to be clear, we are about to vote on all four of those applications along with the minutes. So if anybody in the audience or on the board would like to have any of those removed from the consent agenda, please raise your hand now. Very good. I'll accept a motion. I'd like to make a motion. We approve the consent agenda subject to all staff comments. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion carries. Item number seven on the regular agenda is deferred. Items eight, nine, and ten are at 2530 and 2520 Divine Street. There are three separate applications but the applicant's going to discuss all at the same time. This is a special exception to establish drive-through facilities for financial institution, a variance to the buffer transition yard requirement, as well as a variance to the off-street parking requirement for a financial institution. The applicant is welcome to come forward. My name is Walter Long and I'm a senior vice president in First Department of Bank and we're excited to be moving our corporate headquarters to Divine Street and also having a retail branch operation. I'm not sure if many of you are aware but we're one of the largest privately owned, locally owned banks in South Carolina and we have 23 branches across South Carolina, mainly from the Midlands to the coast. But as far as our application is concerned for today, as you know, I'm a banker so brought my entourage with me today that can answer any of the technical questions that we have and I think you're aware that we had some concerns from the Hermitage HOA and from our neighbor Carrie Murphy who we met with a week or so ago and great conversation. I think they took away from that meeting that we want to be good neighbors not only for immediate adjacent neighbors but they're all of Divine Street and the neighborhood. Again, we're excited to be coming to Divine Street. We think this could be great for our employees, for our tenants and for the surrounding community. So with that I'll take any questions. What are we doing? Which one are we doing first? I'm sorry. They're just presenting on all together. Drive through the buffer transition and the So if you don't mind, then if you've got your application, I'd like to go through first all of the criteria for a special exception. Mr. Thaly, if I may, I'm at to introduce the people I brought with me. Our engineer, Dan Cree, our attorney, Stuart Lee, and our contractor, Chris Cart. And you're welcome to have any of your consultants go through these with us especially if they filled them out they may be more familiar with it than you so it doesn't matter to us. Hey Dan. So are you familiar with the requirements for the special exception that were on the application? Yes, sir. Could you just go through those, just briefly explain, you know, why this meets the criteria for those? Certainly. Again, the reason we're here is because for the special exception is to create a drive-through facility. With respect to how that's how this drive-through facility will not have a substantial adverse impact on vehicular traffic or pedestrian traffic, is that way that is laid out provides adequate stacking at the telewindow and at the proposed ATM prevent traffic from backing out into adjacent streets and to promote and enhance internal circulation with respect to the possible adverse impact on adjoining properties in terms of environmental factors. The drive-through as a renovation, the drive-through facilities are being located in areas which are presently already paved and are in the interior of the property. With respect to the aesthetic character of the area, again, the drive-through facilities are located away from adjoining streets and shielded from Devine Street for the drive-through telewindow. With respect to the possible adverse impact on public safety, certainly the bank is very concerned about public safety and the safety in operating the ATM and the drive-through facilities. They have made provisions for that. Regarding a concentration or proliferation of summer uses, there are other banks, there's another bank down the road and in five points, but any concentration is minor but not very detrimental. With respect to the special accession being consistent with the character and intent of the underlying district, including financial institutions are permitted in a emergency too, and this is certainly an important use for that. With respect to how the exception is appropriate for the location and compatible with the permitted uses adjacent to and in the vicinity, again, this is an existing facility, it's an office building, and the drive-through facilities will occur on paved areas and will not impact adjacent properties. And similarly, with respect to the impacts to the public interest, again, a renovation of existing office building, everything is contained internally, everything is laid out for safety in queuing and for aesthetics. Any questions from the board? So I guess if we're going to go ahead and do this all together, we should go through each one and the variance next. So if you don't mind, let's look at the buffer variance request next. In a nutshell, these two variances are related because we're trying to bring the parking up to the extent that we can from presently not conforming use. And we're, as part of that, providing parking geometry, we're trying to meet as much as we can as landscape requirements, again, for an existing building which is not being expanded, but just re, the use, the activity is being adjusted. So there's several parts of the landscaping to look at, street protected yards, the tree islands. What we're requesting a variance for is the buffer yard. And the reason that we are is because there's presently already not a buffer yard between this office building and the condo unit, the hermitage behind it. And so essentially what we're trying what we're requesting to do is make other landscaping improvements and leave this buffer area the same or the width the same, which is very small, but then provide and improve the fence that's there now that provides buffer. So what we're requesting to do is maintain what's there and improve the condition of the fence. And if it suits the board, I'll go through the conditions. One, obviously, the what are the extraordinary inaccessible conditions that apply to this particular instance, and that is the building was constructed in 72. The layout is fixed. The parking is fixed. We're dealing with a with a with existing conditions that we now have to address. Again, the how do these conditions not apply to other properties or structures in vicinity? Again, an existing building and existing very small smaller than required buffer yard area is specific to this site. Describe the ways in which the application of the requirements of zoning ordinance would prohibit or unreasonable restrict utilization of the property. Again, we've got a an existing building of a fixed size as not that is not being expanded. We have a parking configuration again, which is fixed. And so by providing this buffer yard, which does not presently exist, we would then be forced to have a result and even less parking and would further increase the not conformity with respect to the parking requirements. Describe the ways in which the grants of the variance would not be a substantial judgment to the adjacent parcels of public good or harm the character of the district. Again, it's the continuation of a long standing non detrimental condition and where it gives us an opportunity to to improve other aspects of the landscaping ordinance now that we're having to comply with those requirements for building constructed in 1972, in which the landscaping ordinance didn't exist in its present form. And how is this variance the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land? When we look at all the aspects of that are required for the landscaping ordinance, it is our opinion that that addressing all the other requirements leaving the buffer as a variance. Again, that presently doesn't exist. Improving defense seem to be the minimum. It seemed to be how we could maximize compliance with the remainder of the ordinance and minimize the impact of the other variants itself. And similarly, and how is this in harmony with the purpose of intent of the zoning ordinance. This variance allows us to address street protected yard requirements, parking requirements, everything else and we believe maximizes conformance with all aspects of the zoning ordinance. Could you speak in more detail about the 15 foot landscape bumper that we're talking about here and what the existing conditions are there and what the plan is? Yes, can we flip to the landscape? At the at the bottom of at the plan bottom below that building, you see the the paving which is in the same places that is now goes almost to the property line. That is a condition which presently exists and it is a condition that we propose to continue. It's it's that 15 foot buffer that's required between this promotion use and the high impact residential use that joins it to itself. It's a dumpster existing now or is it proposed? Dumpster location as shown on the plan is the proposed location. Proposed location. Right. Make sure you're in the microphone so we got that recording. After we met with the HOA, we kind of tried to wrap our heads around a better situation. And so we don't need the dumpster, right? Frankly, every tenant that we have in the building, including ourselves, it's commercial office use, very limited. Most people shred their documents anyway. So we already talked with the city of Columbia about just using regular garbage containers. So the dumpster will go away completely. Very good. Chuck, I following up on that comment. That was an area I had identified as well. I understand the request with respect to the larger site in the larger building in the parking spaces. Just looking at it, plan view, you would think that would be the southern portion of the smaller site would be an area that you could bring up to the current landscaping ordinance to comply with that. I guess I heard your answer. The reason was because it's an existing asphalt surface now and you didn't want to disrupt it. Right, there's existing is it asphalt on the southern portion of the smaller site? Southern portion of the smaller site the buffer is being provided is the the eastern portion. Well, I guess it'd be the southwestern portion that the 15 but buffers being provided. But I guess isolating the smaller parcel only. It's not the buffers not going to be provided across the extents of the smaller parcel. The buffer will not be provided along the western boundary of the smaller parcel to the point that the parking lot extends south along the west along the eastern portion. I'm sorry along the on the on the eastern side, it will not be provided up to the point where as far as the parking extends on the western portion on the southern portion, the parking lot the buffers provided. You can see how that the parcel to the to the west is commercial and a buffer is not required. And so the buffer becomes required when we reach that residential zoom parcel at the south west corner. And that's where you see the arc and the labeled 15 foot buffer where it is provided. And then of course on this along the southern part of the line we have the buffer. It looks like on the aerial there is there is a big tree that's not shown on your plan. There may be that 15 foot area. Yeah, and just to clarify again, so they do meet landscaping everywhere except just this back area here where the mouse is being shown. That's the only place that that's to that's basically to remain prompt as is existing condition essentially. Okay, I think I understand now. So the answer is it's not required in that area that it's not not being shown. Okay, very good. That currently is a retaining wall with a fence that the fence is not in good shape. The bank intends to eventually improve the fence or replace it if necessary. Okay, we have one more variance to discuss. That would be the off street parking. Yes, for a financial institution, I believe to recap the banks approach. Presently, the site is not forming with respect to the parking requirement 61 parking spaces are required 53 or presently exists on the site. The bank has purchased the property next door, intends to demo the building or proposes a demo to building and construct additional parking, which when coupled with the restriping, if you will, and the introduction of tree islands permits the available parking to be maximized while accommodating the ATM and the druth room. So to repeat, the bank is taking a building that doesn't conform, bought a demo to build the next to it to improve the matter and to reduce the impact from the proposed improvements. These will be similar to the conditions that we discussed for the buffer variance, but extraordinary exceptional conditions. Again, existing building built in 72 when prior to the present parking requirements. And it now applies to this particular parcel because of the value of the renovate of the interior renovations that are proposed in the bank. application of the minimum parking standards, it wouldn't be going to how would how would application requirements restrict or the utilization of the property. Again, an existing building with enough room for a train half a parking around it to to require 61 parking spaces would require that the drive through and the ATM be eliminated that perhaps we have a greater buffer requirement as we push parking towards the south for that residential area or or a larger buffer variance request. Or I don't know if there's what it does in a space inside the building is is non usable or not. But that's the kind of ways that that might be addressed for we require to to address fully address that existing non conformity. Now, granting of the variance, how it will be objective or not be a definite to adjacent parcel of the public good. Again, this is an existing condition that that is being approved on by removing the building next door and utilizing that area for additional parking. And how is it the minimum necessary? You can again, this is a tradeoff between attending to conform to the extent possible with the landscaping requirements and provide parking geometry, the full nine by 18 spaces, the 22 foot all that kind of thing. So we've maximized the amount of compact spaces available made all the others comply with the geometric standards of the of the ordinance and while respecting the landscaping ordinance. That essentially the same answer number six, and that is how is this in harmony with the purpose of intent of the zoning ordinance. And by this approach, we feel like we've minimized the variances needed for landscaping and for parking. If you don't mind, I think that there's a there's a good exhibit here that I think I think would help kind of gel things together. And Walter, you might be able to assist with this too. But it was the concerns of the hermitage regarding zoning variance request for 2520 2530 divine. And we talked about number one, which is the new dumpster location. And another one was down lighting, you know, the lights, can you address that? Sure. The down lighting, of course, being primarily an 830 to five operation. There's not going to be lighting in the parking lot. The only lighting that we expect to have will be near the ATM for security reasons. And I believe the HOA understood that and was agreeable that that was necessary. Any other lighting we that will be on the building will be at the entrance. But other than that, there's no parking lot lighting that we're going to be adding. And if we did, we I don't think it's going to be necessary, but we would agree to down lighting that were necessary. And I guess one of the other things was that they'd mentioned the security of the area at the very rear of the property and pretty much addressed that, I think, but you just elaborate a little bit more here, of course, we'll have all of our normal bank security and security cameras to that effect. And certainly, if we needed additional lighting for security reasons, we would be agreeable to adding that we certainly want our building to be secure and anybody who's coming to our facility. And regarding the landscape plan, there was a mention of the right tree at the right place. Did y'all talk about that? Sure. And I don't believe we've got to that point yet. When we get to the landscape requirements at this point, we've been trying to get the plan approved so that we can get our art escaping and landscaping plan in place. That's really all I wanted to verify. Any other questions from the board? Great. We would love to have anybody that wants to speak for against this application for two variances and a special exception. Please come forward. Any board discussion? I think they did a good job of meeting with the homeowner's association here, discuss their concerns. We don't see that often, but that helps mitigate some of the concerns before they come in front of us. So I certainly am appreciative of that. Because we look at the three different requests, a special exception for the drive through impact to me seems minor, if any, it's a well thought out plan. It's I don't see any adverse impact there. I think the buffer variance for the buffer yard request is certainly logical. You have to lose a lot of parking spaces. And we've got a request for a variance to the parking requirements anyway. So doesn't make sense to me to do that. I think we're going to end up with an improvement. The fence does look sort of like it's in poor condition. So I think when this becomes developed, that'll be an improvement. So the only thing that's really debatable in my opinion is the the parking request. But that's a common request that we're discussing up here often. And they're not that far off. Honestly, if you look at the proposed site plan, it looks like there's nine spaces surrounding the two parcels on both divine and King Street. And if you add that to the spaces they're providing, you're almost there. So I think they've done a good job of configuring the site plan and reusing the existing conditions while maintaining a minor impact to the residential parcels that surround it. So everything I see here with these three requests, very reasonable and looks good to me. So I think that I can make a motion separately on all of these and we can vote on all at one time. What do you think Rachel? You can either split them up or if the motion is going to be the same for all on the board have an ejection to voting on all of these at the at one time. Just make sure to reference just item eight, nine and 10. So I'd like to make a motion that we approve the special exception to 019-0030-SE and also approve the variance to 019-0031-B and also the variance number to 019-0032 dash B. Subject to all comments of staff in the applications and I think, you know, pursuant to the the terms of the application presented by the by the applicant. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion carries. The final item on the agenda is the approval of the updated Board of Zoning Appeals rules of procedure. So they had not been updated since 2012. So I felt like some tweets were necessary. So if everyone is on board. So just a motion of approval or denial. I second. We have a motion to approve in a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. No other business. I'll make a motion that we adjourn. Second. All in favor say aye. We are now adjourned. Excellent.