 I'll bring the November 1st City of Columbia Planning Commission meeting into session. Welcome to Planning Commission members, staff and guests. We ask for your patience during this virtual meeting. Multiple staff members are behind the scenes with us today, our Lucinda Statler, the Planning Administrator, Hope Pasty, Interim Zoning Administrator, Jonathan Chambers, Land Development Administrator, and Andrew Livinggood, annexation coordinator. During the meeting, you will see live images or still images of Planning Commission members and the Administrator. However, images of the applicant and the public will not be visible. In addition to watching the meeting virtually, the public will be able to participate via these methods, by email, by phone, logging into a web session, or participating in person. When participating, please provide your name for documentation purposes. To watch the meeting, you may stream meetings through City TV accessed at www.youtube.com slash user slash Columbia SC government. The public may submit letters and statements via email to cocboardmeeting at columbiasc.gov, leading up to and or during the meeting, as this account will be monitored during the meetings. Emails and letters sent during the meeting will be read into the record. Emails and letters received prior to the meeting have been forwarded to the Commission. The public may participate via phone. You may call 855-925-2801. When prompted, please enter the meeting code 2221. And if you're here to speak about a case in person, you must speak up when the chairperson calls for public comment. And I'll go ahead and call the roll. Mr. Frost. Here. Ms. James. Here. Mr. Cohn. Here. Ms. Davis. Here. Ms. Hartz. Here. Dr. Mandel. Here. Ms. Thomas. Here. And Mr. Tupper. Brief overview of the meeting. Applicants with request before the planning commission are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This should include but is not limited to an overview of the project, the case history, and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant, such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the planning commission or staff regarding requests. Members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns as well and intervals of two minutes. I just want to reinstate that two minutes. We will have a timer available. It'll sound like an alarm. And when that alarm goes off, you're allotted time has been completed. The administrator does have a timer and will make presenters aware of when their time has expired. The planning commission reserves the right to amend procedures on a case-by-case basis. The planning commission uses the consent agenda to approve noncontroversial or routine matters by single motion and vote. Examples of such items include approval of site plans, annexations, and street names. If a member of the planning commission or the general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, that item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the normal regular meeting. The planning commission then approves the remaining consent agenda items. So I'll go ahead and read through the consent agenda items. The first item is approval of the October 4, 2021 minutes. And then I'm going to click through these cases as I read each one. Case number 2 is annex dash 2021 dash 0019 3923 Bright Avenue. This is a request to annex the property and assign a land use classification of urban core residential small lot and assign zoning of residential single family small lot at the time of annexation. The property is currently classified as mixed residential high-density and zoned RSHD by Richland County. Case number 3 is annex dash 2021 dash 0020. This is a 44.38 acre portion on County Line Trail. The TMS number is 31700 dash 01 dash 04 and that's partial. This is a request to annex the property and assign a land use classification of urban edge residential small lot and assign zoning of plan development at the time of annexation. The property is currently classified as neighborhood medium density and zoned M1 by Richland County. Case 4 annex dash 2021 dash 0021 4021 Trotter Road. This is a request to annex the property and assign a land use classification of urban edge residential large lot and assign zoning of residential mixed RM1 at the time of annexation. The property is currently classified as neighborhood medium density and zoned RSHD by Richland County. We also have a minor amendment to a plan development. This is case number 5 ZMA dash 2021 dash 0008. This is 18.82 acres on the south side of Pine View Drive and 1.12 acres on the south side of Garner's Ferry Road. This is a request to make a minor amendment to a plan development. And then under site plan review, case number 6 is S plan dash 2021 dash 0018. This is 17.78 acres on the east side of Cliff Kinder Road south of Corner Wind Lane. This is a request for site plan approval for the construction of a 308 unit multifamily apartment development. The Burnside Farms Apartments. The property is zoned plan development. Case number 7 S plan dash 2021 dash 0017 14.9 acres at 2701 Atlas Road. This is a request for site plan approval for the construction of a 240 unit multifamily apartment development. The village is a Congaree Point. The property was zoned RG2 general residential at the time of application. And there was a traffic impact study provided. Case number 8 S plan dash 2021 dash 0019. This is 26.58 acres on research drive TMS number 17200-02-11. Request for site plan approval for the construction of a 264 unit multifamily apartment development point grand. The property is currently zoned general commercial in Richland County and is currently being considered for annexation with the employment campus district zoning. Case number 9 is S plan dash 2021 dash 0020 275 Harbison Boulevard. Request for site plan approval for the construction of a 3000 plus or minus square foot restaurant with a drive-through an approximately 4000 square foot restaurant with a drive-through and approximately 8500 square foot building addition at Harbison Center. The property is zoned plan development and the traffic impact study was provided. Case number 10 S plan dash 2021 dash 0021 100 Parkridge Drive request for site plan approval for the construction of a 9420 square foot building at Love Chevrolet. The property is zoned plan development. Case number 11 S plot 2020 dash 0069 600-629 McCabe Road 537-562 Mahonea Road. And then all the TMS numbers don't read those. Request site plan approval to reduce the setbacks of a previously approved 27 lot single family residential subdivision and Wood Creek farms. Area A5 phase 1C. The properties are zoned plan development. Then case number 12 is a street name. This is S N dash 2021 dash 0004. A street name request named streets within the Victory Woods Village subdivision formerly known as Colonel's Creek subdivision. The streets listed are artillery lane, barracks road, defend court, grenade road, infantry lane, battalion road, half mast way, field strip road and paratrooper lane. The property is zoned residential mixed district. And that is the conclusion of the very long consent agenda. Thank you. Thank you. We've heard the consent agenda. Is there anyone from the planning commission that would like any item removed from the consent agenda hearing none? Is there anyone in the public from the public, either in person or virtually, that would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda? When participating, please provide your full name for the minutes. Seeing none in person will pause for any virtual request. I'm going to continue to pause for a few more moments. Okay, sure. Mr. Chair, I do not see anyone public input. Okay. We have emails, but not for anything on the consent agenda. Okay. All right. Great. Let the minutes show that I will recuse myself from the vote of the consent agenda. But are there any further questions regarding the consent agenda? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Got a motion. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it, the consent agenda is passed. The Planning Commission will now move to the regular agenda. We will use the following outline for regular agenda items. The administrator will introduce the case. The applicant will have 10 minutes to make a presentation. Planning Commission may ask questions. The public will be allowed to participate via email, voicemail, in person or via the web. Planning Commission may ask additional questions of the applicant and then action will be taken by the Planning Commission. Good evening. This is the first case on the regular agenda. This is a site plan review case for 16.2 acres, 750 and 754 South Beltland Boulevard and 1,400 block of Michael Lane. At the October meeting, the Planning Commission deferred this application to allow the community to share concerns with the applicant. Since then, the applicant has revised the site plan which calls for a one-way access along South Beltland Boulevard and they've also received South Carolina DOT approval of that plan. It is our understanding that the applicant has met with the community. There is also a letter from the Guilds Creek Watershed Association in your packet. To go back to the case, this is 16.2 acres which is located at the 700 block of South Beltland Boulevard and the 1,400 block of Michael Lane. The majority of the site is located in the flood plain and contains wetlands. This development will be clustered on 4.2 acre portion of the site and the remainder of the site will be undisturbed and retained as open space. The proposed development will contain a total of 19 single-family residences with lot sizes between 4,200 square feet and 6,300 square feet and access through the residence again will be through an alleyway that is located on South Beltland Boulevard and a cul-de-sac which will be constructed along Michael Lane and I believe the applicant is present and can explain their case further. Thank you. Any questions from Planning Commission for staff? If the applicant is present and would like to give a brief presentation would be open for that. Thank y'all for allowing us to come back and my name is Wyman Bowers. I'm with the Phi Custom Homes. We are the applicant here proposing this development and just wanted to take a few minutes to talk about it a little bit and just to share our vision with you. So we've got three main goals or desires for this proposed development. The first is to enhance an already vibrant neighborhood. There's no question about the vibrancy of the neighborhood or about the passion of those who live there. The second is to construct attractive will-build homes that are going to last for decades. And the third is to actually bring value to the community. So those are our desires and objectives for this proposed development. Let me address the positives and then some of the concerns. The first is as has already been expressed is that we are proposing on this 16.2 acres to only develop 4.2 acres of it so that leaves 75% open space. Our desire is not to touch or to disturb any of the wetlands or the FEMA designated areas. We have a letter of support from the Gales Creek watershed association. We've been in discussions with them about their desires and they are in full support of what our proposal is here today. Some of the concerns that were raised both at the three prior meetings that we've had with the neighborhood association and also here before the planning commission last October. Some of those concerns dealt with the buffer between the southernmost portion of those homes on Michael Lane and our proposed development. You can probably see better on the sheets that you have. I've got the 10 foot setback between the southernmost portion of those homes on Michael Lane and I would call it proposed home 15 and 16 and a 1. Can you point those out to us just for reference? So 1 is here, everybody can see that, sorry, 15 is here, 16 is here. Also I have this in my hand. One of the primary concerns when we met with the neighborhood association, both the first and the second time, was the traffic and what impact the traffic would have from this proposed development. So we, as Mr. Chambers said, we went back to SCDOT and received their approval for our proposal. And what that is, is simply a one-way alley in and out through an already existing, it's concrete alleyway. And they modeled that based off of what was proposed and approved on Divine Street and I believe you all had that in your packets. So those are two of the concerns that were addressed. And the third is the large lots. That's a desire of the neighborhood association. We understand that. And that's why we're preserving over 75% of these five parcels, these 16.2 acres. We will actually not be putting as many homes as we could put on this parcel. Our desire to put homes with square footages between 1,250 square feet and 1,750 square feet, if we would have really wanted to, we could have put more in there under both the old and the new zoning ordinances, which allow for the cluster homes. So we're not asking for any deviation from that ordinance. Anything that we've proposed and worked with staff on that falls within compliance under the ordinance. And the last, and this is somewhat minor, but there'll be sidewalks on the new 50-foot cul-de-sac coming from Michael back to the Homes 12 and 19, but there'll be sidewalks on both sides of that right away. So I'll be glad to answer any questions either now or later. Right. Thank you. Any questions from the planning commission to the applicant? Yes. Actually, I'm curious how many houses you could have put. You said that you could have put more. So what is the maximum number that you could have put? Under the current zoning cluster ordinance 24. 24. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I have a question. Yes, ma'am. How does the square footage of the homes that you're building compare to the ones that are in the surrounding area? Yes, ma'am. We looked at all the homes on Michael Lane and taking out two of the homes, one was 825 square feet and the other was 2,500 square feet. Taking out those two homes, which we considered to be outliers, the average square footage of the homes on Michael Lane is 1,331 square feet, which fits within what we are proposing our homes would be. Thank you. Any other further questions at this time for the applicant? Thank you. Thanks, sir. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak for or against the project? Hey, Mark Cox, Columbia, South Carolina on Michael Lane. Our South Belt Line community is a strong one. Through a 1,000-year flood and a global pandemic, we've continued to work together to build a stronger and safer community for our families, neighbors, and loved ones. We're not against progress or development. We welcome it. Webster Defines Progress is the process of improving or developing towards betterment. But this small-lot development plan is not progress for our community. In last month's planning meeting, I shared Dr. Mandel's concern when she stated, these lot sizes do not seem consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Visually, you can look at it and see how narrow those lots are and how crammed they are in there. I agreed with Ms. Thomas' direction when she said, I think this needs to be comparable to what's currently there. As far as a new site plan that we would review, it needs to be comparable to what's already in that community. When Mr. Cohn said, my direction to the developer would be to try to meet with some of the residents or the... I appreciate his direction. So I was disappointed when the developer called the second community meeting and bought in the exact same site plan he had presented to us weeks earlier with zero changes or modifications to the lot size. When asked why he ignored the planning commission's suggestions and directions, Mr. Bowers said, no one is going to like this, but we could have actually gotten in 24 lots. We've already come off 24, so 19 lots is the concession number we have. After 30 minutes of back and forth, the only new concession that Mr. Bowers would make would be to remove the two closest lots to Michael Lane, reducing the number from 19 to 17 lots. He said they would not change the other lot size or layouts. I was amazed that he completely ignored the direction from this planning commission and the concerns from the neighborhood. I hope Dr. Mandel sticks by her word that if they could not find a compromise that would be something in between, I would not vote for this. We continue to want to see progress in our community, which means more than development for a developer's bottom line. We have signatures from everybody in the surrounding area that said they do not want small lot developments. Thank you. I don't know what this does. You can provide it to staff. Before we bring anybody else up, let me just read through the public comment period so if there's any one virtual, they can begin to send emails in as well. So we encourage those who would like the comment be an email or the web to begin sending in letters and emails. That email addresses COC board meeting at columbiasc.gov or on the web at HTTPS colon slash slash public input dot com slash COC PC dash November 2021. For those wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live, please call 855-925-2801. When prompted, please enter the meeting code 2221, then press star two to leave a voicemail or press star three to speak live. Be sure your computer audio is off to avoid any feedback. So first we will continue to hear from anyone else in the audience that would like to speak. Would you like to come up to the front, ma'am? Please state your name and. My name is stating her concerns about the community. Yes, yes ma'am. Thank you. You can provide that to staff and they can read that. And I would like to comment, but I'll yield to. Go ahead while you're up here. I want to address my concerns for the proposed development of property located off South Beltline and Michael White. During our last meeting here at the zoning commission, our community members identified a number of issues that were concerned about regarding this proposed development. The major concerns that we have have not been addressed. The traffic and infrastructure concerns that the city of Columbia is not responsible for in the 19 homes that the developer proposes to build on four tiny acres in that area. My main concern is the number of houses, 19 that the developer wants to build on those four acres. At our last meeting with the developers representative, Mr. Bauer, we attempted to work with him in coming up with a compromise that would maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and allow the builders to develop homes that would complement the community and allow them to reasonably reach their financial goal. During the meeting, several community members proposed reducing the number of houses from 19 to 10 to 15 homes, which would allow them to build a larger home with plenty of space around it. However, the representative, Mr. Bauer, made a half-hearted offer to build 17 houses instead of the proposed 19 out. I asked Mr. Bauer if any of the members of his development team planned on living in any of the houses that they proposed to build. He said, no. I also asked him, does it matter to him or to the people he represents that their proposed development will greatly diminish the quality of life for the residents that currently live in the community and have called it home for up to 40 or more years? He had no comment. While we are not opposed to Mr. Bauer and his company building on the property, we do want to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood because this is where we live and we want to continue living in the peace and tranquility that our neighborhood provides. It is becoming more and more difficult to find neighborhoods that offer the community and wildlife sanctuary that our community provides. As I looked at the mission of the City of Columbia Zoning Commission, it states that its goal is to guide the development of the city in a manner that enhances quality of life, promotes distinctive neighborhood, supports businesses and protects the environment through professional, positive, social, solution-oriented planning, permitting, zoning, and enforced services. And according to its mission, the Columbia Zoning Board has a duty to ensure that our quality of life is maintained to include protecting the environment. A solution to this issue must be appropriately considered in favor of the protection of the community. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the audience? My name is Whitney Denton. I'm a resident of South Kilburn Neighborhood Association. I also am Secretary of the Board of South Kilburn and Treasurer of Columbia Council of Neighborhoods. So I'm here to speak on a few different aspects. Rosewood created a 25-year plan with the City of Columbia in 2012. So we do have some years left on it. It was done with all of the neighborhoods that fall under the umbrella of Rosewood, South Kilburn being one of them. It was done using focus groups, community involvement and the neighborhood associations. Public input surveys, three-fourths of the homes in our neighborhood are single family. 80% of them rated as very good or in good condition. If you actually go through the Rosewood 25-year plan of what it wants to accomplish, it wants to accomplish homes that are similar to the character of the neighborhood and to preserve the character of the neighborhood. These adjacent lots are anywhere from a fifth to a third of an acre. That is really what we thought Mr. Bowers was going to come in to the meeting last week and present for larger lots. That wasn't even up for discussion. He was coming in to present the DOT one-way and one-way out. Had he taken a moment or anyone else to read the Rosewood 25-year plan, talks about preserving our tree canopy and actually increasing it. 86% of the trees in the neighborhood fall on privately held lands. If you pull up map 3.19 on the Rosewood plan, which is on the planning department's website, you will see the bulk of these trees fall along Guilds Creek Watershed and on this property in question. The most dense areas are these parcels. If you go into the Rosewood 25-year plan, traffic was a concern. Beltline was the second road listed as an issue with speed and collisions. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Joan Gathers and I live on South Beltline. I'm not opposed to the development of this property with your homes. The neighborhood is made up of various types of homes and lot sizes. An average of the lot size for the existing neighborhood should determine the amount of houses built on the 4.2 acres. At the last meeting with the builder representative, the same plans were presented with 19 houses. He did state that he could have built 24 houses on that property. I'm also concerned with the 12 acres, the wet land that cannot be developed. This cluster housing will have an HOA fee. How is this land going to be taken care of? Is the HOA going to sell it to a conservation group? Are they going to pay a fee to organization to maintain this land? We are flooding right now in South Beltline with a heavy rain. Will there be additional runoff order to adjacent properties and the road because of the development? Please do not approve this plan to build 19 houses on this site. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else from the? Hi, my name is Terri Ryan and I reside at 901 South Beltline and 907 South Beltline. While I recognize that I live in a rapidly developing and changing area, I've come to this board not out of a generalized fear of dislike for change, but as a neighbor and homeowner in the city of Columbia who has real concerns about how this proposed development will negatively impact the quality of living in my community. Now, while you've heard a number of oppositions to this proposed development by Lafaye Homes, these oppositions are very real to my husband and I who have lived here for over 20 years. I have concerns that the developer has understood that we have rezoned to large lot residential living spaces and submitted their application a few days before the rezoning to large lot, which was to take, in my opinion, to take advantage of our neighborhood. I believe that there has been a strong disregard to the fact that the community has asked the developer to compromise by making their design look like the neighborhood. I have a concern that the developer wants to place 19 homes on 4.2 acres of land, which potentially purchasing the remainder of the property to satisfy that requirement that allows them to do so. I'm concerned about the land that is unusable, just like Ms. Delores stated and Ms. Joan. Bottom line, this design is not comparable to our community. I'm concerned that while it might not be a requirement to do a traffic study, I do know that I've had several car accidents, too many to count in front of my own property, where cars have landed in my front yard. I believe with the building of this many houses, it would increase the traffic flow, which is already heavy with the CDL licensing trucks going by my home, as well as the car clubs that meet at the end of South Belt Line and the new petrol stop and the regular flow of traffic to the I-77 Interstate. In addition to our community traffic, if that happens, they'll go into the regular neighborhoods to avoid the traffic on South Belt Line. And that would disrupt the peace and sanctity of our neighborhood. I would like for the board to vote no to the existing proposal and safeguard the quality of our living. Thank you. Thank you. My name's Nian Trout. I'm the one, if you look at the plan on the 77 side, those are my two lots directly adjacent to this. I spoke before. I'm sorry, I cannot count again. I did not bring enough papers. This time it looks a little bit better than the kindergarten crayon. But here is the statistics. I wrote down every single lot in our neighborhood, how many acres there are. Large, medium, small, every single one, what the average was. And I also put in there pictures. I want you to see what our neighborhood looks like. What they're building is not gonna look like our neighborhood. Nothing like our neighborhood. They had a chance to really wow us a couple of blocks down the road. They built some townhomes. Their average at best. So they had a chance to blow us away and show us what they could do when they did a poor job of it. The other things I'm concerned about is conservation easement. Are they gonna use this conservation easement to be allowed to build all these homes and then sell this and make money off of it? If that's the case, I don't know that that's illegally allowed. Is this going to be a company owned? It seems like it's probably going to be that way because in our neighborhood, the houses get bought up by commercially owned operations, not by individuals. HOA was a big discussion last time. Did not hear the discussion about the HOA. I am concerned about that. The retention pond that they decided that they needed to put in there. We're Gills Creek. We've got water everywhere. I wanna know why we have to have a retention pond added. If we need a retention pond, that's usually for apartment complexes and high density living, multifamily. So I can't understand why we need that. If you'll look at those pictures, you will see the lot sizes. And then you can clearly compare it to what across the street. I showed a picture of what it would look like if you lived across the street, what 11 homes would look like over there and what that will look like across the street looks like is three houses. Three houses. Thank you. The original 1937 plan of our neighborhood. It is here for the viewing and it looks exactly the same today as lot sizes today as it was done in 1937. Thank you. Anyone else from the audience to speak for or against? Yes ma'am, come on up. Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Parker and I've been a resident on Michael Lane for over 16 years. I'm just gonna reiterate everything that's already been said because in looking at my notes, I'm basically gonna be saying the same thing. I started following this property in March 2016 only because it was being listed as a potential for development. Don't really want it to be developed. I chose my neighborhood and my home because of the peace and tranquility of the area because it's adjacent to a wooded lot and it's kind of tucked away from everything and I really would like for it to stay that way. With that being said, I do understand that the land will eventually be developed but my hope is that it will be developed responsibly and coincide as everybody else has said here with already existing neighborhood and to preserve and maintain as much as possible the natural area. Pretty much all I have to say. Thank you. Anyone else remaining in the audience to speak for or against? Yes, ma'am. I've lived there for almost 40 years. Just recently, I have smelled the sewer. Other people that are below us down the hill have said that they have frequently smelled the sewer. I don't think that this property is at the stage that it can safely be developed. If we, I'm a quarter of a mile away from the people who earlier said that they had smelled the sewer and my neighbor across the street, just a while ago said that yes, they had smelled the sewer gases also and I don't think this is proper for good health and it's a long time ago. I used to work for CDC and I want everybody to be healthy. So please consider all of the pros and the cons about this. I'd love to have some lovely neighbors but I don't want 19 families. Please consider that. Thank you. Thank you. I am Michelle Huggins. I am the president of the South Kilburn Neighborhood Association. I have been in this position for 12 years and it has been a very interesting 12 years. 2015, we were affected by the flood. I can say now on Timber Lane, we have issues still with flooding. They do have sewer problems. We had to report it last week because it was so severe that it was making neighbors sick. We're looking at this area right here. These are some of the neighbors that live over there. They need y'all to vote no to this. Mr. Bowers, I appreciate him reaching out and coming to us but he showed up at this past meeting and he did not bring anything new to the table. Those homes, yeah, it needs to go down to 11 to 13, possibly 11 to 15. But that many that are in there, that's not gonna work. They need to make it comparable to what is going on. We've got the new town homes that have went in across from, please excuse me, from the Rosewood Youth Baseball, which is Valencia Ball Park. We told them ahead of time, hey, there's gonna be balls flying over. Even though we've got a net, they invariably always do. Those homes look good, but the inside, some of the things were not done by what they custom homes. They outsourced the product. What they have now isn't gonna last home and those will become Section 8 appointments at some point. We've already got Section 8 Apartments on South Belonga Boulevard. We have nothing but problems out of those at this time. There are good residents in there, but there's a lot more bad to come through. We have the police that are constantly there. The very next department complex. I went in one day to ask the lady that was working. Hey, how is it going? Do you have a lot of issues? Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Please, babe, no. This is our neighborhood, just like it is your neighborhood. You would not want it in yours. Thank you. Anyone else in the public here, in the audience that would like to speak for or against? Okay, we will now hear comments that have been received in writing. Mr. Chairman, before we move on, I just wanna make sure that we put the items that have been submitted to y'all on the record. So Exhibit A, which would be signatures of opposition presented by Mark Cox will be Exhibit A. Exhibit C would be the various documents of the surrounding area that were presented by Ms. Nan Trial. And then Exhibit B would be the letter that was presented on behalf of Hilda, and I think it's Asep-la-vita, sorry about that. And that was presented by Ms. Dolores Glimp on their behalf, that's Exhibit B. And Ms. Statler will read the letter from, that was presented. So this is the letter from Ms. Hilda Sep-la-vita. It says, I have been here 45 years in my home, I'm 86 years old and want to see my neighborhood remain peaceful and quiet. I live alone and I'm fearful of having a lot of strange people in the neighborhood. The neighborhood should retain its present character with nice homes and very little traffic. We pay property taxes and should be able to enjoy the tranquility of our environment. Please ensure that our neighborhood is not destroyed by developers who just want to make money by overbuilding in small communities like ours. Thank you. And then we've got several emails as well that have come in about this case. So just bear with me for one moment. Sure. This is an email from Francis Layton. Good evening, I regret I cannot attend this meeting in person, but please do not mistake my absence for a complacence in regard to this development. My family and I are extremely opposed to these plans for the following reasons. When referencing the Rosewood 50 year plan, this development does not fit in at all. Lot sizes are far too small, the houses are far too close, inhabitants will not have the ability to enjoy their own yard. This plan is horrible for the already poor infrastructure in place for the area. Many accidents occur on South Beltline, the road is narrow and in need of repair. The last thing, sorry. The last thing we need is more traffic here. Building on this flood zone, what are you all thinking? Lastly, sorry my phone's updating suddenly. Lastly, I'm extremely disappointed in the way that the developers have handled the response from the neighbors in this community. We have asked you to reconsider specific elements of your plan and you claimed you would return with a better proposal that addressed our concerns. At the last meeting, your plans were identical to the original plan with the exception of removing just two of the proposed homes, those closest to the road. This is incredibly disrespectful to the members of the community who will have to live with your decisions for years to come. Please show us, you're willing to work with us and I promise we'll be more accepting to potential compromises. Thank you for your time. Okay, this next one is from, my name is Leroy Bennett and I reside at 901 and 907 South Beltline Boulevard and I wanted my voice to be heard at this meeting regarding the proposed South Beltline Boulevard development project to let the board know of my opposition to the developers' plans to build 19 homes in my community. I'm opposed to the design plans of the Lafay development project because I believe the following. One, the developers' plans are not comparable to the large lot sizes or even medium sizes that exist now in my neighborhood. Two, I believe this increase in the number of homes would negatively impact the already troubled and aging infrastructure of our neighborhood and there was no promise that the developer would be willing to assist in any improvements or betterments in the neighborhood to assist with these concerns. Three, because there is no required traffic study, we will not know how this will impact an already busy traffic-laced South Beltline Boulevard as it is already difficult for me to turn onto South Beltline Boulevard from my driveway. Four, I do not think that this fits the 25-year plan for Rosewood that the City of Columbia helped us to design with the vision this would be a community that allows for individuality and encourages the aesthetic qualities that make the community unique within the city and the region. Five, this new project would negatively impact my neighbors who are still in the process of recovering from the 2015 flood and would add to congestion, potential neighborhood safety issues and evade the peace and quality of living in this community due to the increase of cars and people. Six, finally, the developer has stated to the community throughout the meetings that they are not interested in large lot designs or medium lot designs and are unwilling to invest in just seven or 10 homes. It appears that the 17 homes is their compromise and they're only interested in dollars and not the concerns of our neighborhood. This is an email from Stacy Neum. I oppose the proposed development on South Beltline and Michael Lane. This development does not consider or follow the future view for our areas laid out by the City of Columbia planning and development. A Rosewood development and corridor plan which does not include the type of subpar building construction and tiny lots this developer is proposing. I refer you to the development at Valencia Park ball field which is a project of this developer. That project has poor construction quality used cheap materials and is void of character. A Rosewood development and corridor plan lays out a 25 year plan for a quote community that allows for development and growth but not at the expense of losing the community's character and sense of place, end quote. We take pride in our community. We love the trees, vegetation and wildlife. We enjoy our spacious yards, the quality construction and character of our homes. The Rosewood development and corridor plan lays out the desire to extend the tree canopy on our roads. This developer is removing all of the trees and their proposed small lot properties to not provide room for lawns or vegetation. The developer is just being greedy and trying to bleed maximum profit return at our expense. They should not be allowed to calculate the number of houses that can be squeezed into four acres using the full property which is mostly wetlands and unbuildable. The Rosewood development and corridor plan notes quote the overwhelming need for traffic calming and other similar transportation adjustments to make the corridor in the neighborhood a more inviting pedestrian and bicycle friendly space. Our roadways are already struggling to keep up with the traffic and repairs and are constantly needed. Adding potentially 40 plus more cars to this area will create an even larger problem, especially the section of road in front of the proposed development that is already constantly being repaired. I have witnessed numerous cars shoot off the road in this very section of self-belt line because of excessive speeding. The Rosewood development and corridor plan includes quote strong support for making Rosewood a greener neighborhood by introducing sustainable infrastructure techniques as a part of this overall plan. End quote, our sewer and water system is already strained. Self-belt line and Edmund just experienced a line break just a few weeks ago. We changed our in-home filtration more than normal due to the debris in our water supply. And as of last week, we have been smelling sewage. Please vote against this proposed development. I do not believe it is good direction for our neighborhood. Thank you for your time. And then this email is from Kristen Bogner. Hello, I'm running to voice my concerns for the proposed development of 19 small lot homes on self-belt line. I'm a member of the South Kilburn Neighborhood Association. I live two blocks away from the proposed development. During the last planning commission meeting, it was requested that the developers and community come to a compromise agreement regarding the size of the lots. The representative for the development firm, Wyman Bowers, did not come back with another plan. Bowers instead told us they could technically put more houses on the four developable acres than the proposed 19. That information was a relevant, was an irrelevant waste to community members' time. When this was addressed in the meeting, Bowers did come down on the number of houses by two, which is not anywhere near what we would like to see as a community. Seven to 10 houses would be in line with surrounding lot sizes. The development firms compromise did not increase the lot sizes at all, but merely knocked off the two end houses. The high density would remain the same. Small lot development in that area is not in accordance with what is outlined by the 25-year plan for the Rosewood community and does not fit what already exists in that section of the neighborhood. I'm not against development of that land, but would like the development to be aligned with what already exists around it, which is large lots. Thank you for your time and consideration in making sure that future development occurs in a way that does not compromise the existing character of our neighborhood. That's all the letters. Thank you. We will now hear from any voicemails or see if there are any callers on the line. I do not have any voicemails and there are no callers on the line. Okay. Thank you. Are there any follow-up questions from Planning Commission to staff or to the applicant? I have some questions. Yes, ma'am. I'm unclear. Is the current proposal 17 or 19? Okay. So you said at the meeting you would come down to 17, but what you're asking for right now is 19. Is that correct? Correct. Yes, ma'am. Okay. We're permitted out of the cluster. There's no any ordinance to ask for 19. So that's what we would ask for. Okay. Yes, ma'am. I understand that. I guess I want to make clear a couple things. I didn't know a promise that I would vote for or against this at the last meeting. So if that was unclear, let me restate that. I am no way made any promises either way. What I did say at the end of the meeting if my memory serves me correctly, that my hope was is that there would be some kind of give and take so that no one would be happy at the end, which I completely understand, but there would be some sort of compromise. So I guess I was happy to hear about the 17 because in my mind that's a 10% reduction, which seems actually substantial to me, honestly. I know that's not anywhere, but other people in the neighborhood have thrown around the number of 10 to 15 lots. 17 is not that far from 15, but 19 does seem a lot farther away. So I guess I was thinking that if you had proposed 17, it would have felt like that would have been a compromise of some kind, but that is in fact not what you're proposing right now. Is that correct? Correct. So I wanted to clarify that. Yes, and what we, again, that's why I've mentioned the 24 number because not that we could have done more, but we could have. And so we proposed what we believe what was reasonable the first time. Okay. I guess I'm just unclear because multiple people have said that you did offer 17 at that meeting as a compromise. And so I was confused about that. So, but clearly you are saying that you are asking for 19, so. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So I guess I'm confused about what the consensus ended up being at meeting three. Did y'all come to the consensus of 17 lots or did you come to the consensus of 19 because going back to the community piece, we wanna make sure everybody's heard. And just like she said, if we were all able to come to some common ground, why can't that 17 lots be presented instead of the 19? I understand you can get up to 24, but if we can work together, then I think. Yes, ma'am. So at the meeting, there were those who were there who were absolutely adamantly opposed to any. So their number was zero. There were others who said three, others who said five, some said 10, some said 15. So I don't, and everybody was there. I don't believe we came up with a consensus even from the neighborhood's perspective, but I'm not gonna speak for the neighborhood. No, it seems clear there is no consensus. I guess my, what I was hoping at the end of the last meeting was again that you would give a little something and the neighborhood would probably not be happy. I understand that, but that it would be some level of compromise because I do believe it seems fair. You purchased the property, it is to be developed. I mean, I can't argue, there are a lot of things that really aren't our purview. Our purview is whether or not we approve this site plan. And I guess my concern was that there would be, I guess I was confused, like I said, about the multiple people said that you had agreed to 17 and clearly that's not where you're at. So I guess I just wanted to really clarify that. I don't, I don't, there are a lot of hands raised. I don't know that we need to, you know. So have any, have you proposed any alternative plans that people can see? Or was it just, we can strike this one or that one? The latter. The latter? Yes, sir. I think sometimes for me, when you go into situations, it's pretty helpful to try to show something else. So the traffic impact was the primary concern at the first meeting. So we, let's, let's let the, I did have one other question. So was there a traffic impact study or just an approval from the DOT? The approval from the DOT was there was not one needed. Okay. So that was, that was the primary concern at the first meeting. And we, we addressed that with DOT. And then also there was a concern about the, the barrier or border between the back of Michael Lane and our proposed, I don't remember the precise number but 16, 15 and one, I think were the, with lots. So it wasn't that there was no, no compromise. It just wasn't a compromise that the neighborhood association was comfortable with. But the DOT also affirmed there was not a traffic study needed there. Correct. Yes, sir. Okay. I mean, it's interesting because I guess what I very much heard at that last meeting was that the primary issue was the lot sizes and the density of the lot sizes. So I heard the traffic. I heard people were unhappy potentially about a variety of things, the buffer. But what I heard was the lot sizes and the number of lots was the primary issue. So I guess we were differently. So in my mind, the other pieces that you've offered, I think are helpful, but again, what you didn't address was the number of lots. And so that's what I heard was the most important thing from the neighborhood. And I could have been wrong, but that was certainly my sense. So I guess I was excited about hearing the 17 and it's a little bit unfortunate that that's the piece that you, I mean, you're, it seemed to be very clear about that 19. So. Yes, ma'am. Can you? Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry for interrupting, but this is when you did your presentation today, you took your chart and you pointed out two homes on Nicola Lane that you said that you were going to be removing. Did I hear that clearly or did I misunderstand something? So I believe your question to me was about the size of the homes. No, no, I understand that. I mean, when you did, there were two homes on the side of the entrance that you pointed out. And I thought I heard that those homes would not be built. No, ma'am. No, ma'am. Okay. I agree. The last meeting, the biggest concern was lot size. And based on what you showed us, thus far it's pretty much the exact same that you showed, exact same thing that you showed us last month, correct? Correct, yes, ma'am. So there is no intention on making the houses that you're building comparable to what's currently there. In terms of the lot size? Correct. Correct. And that's because under the current cluster zoning ordinance, what we have proposed is permitted. So we're abiding by the zoning ordinance. Any other questions for the applicant? From the Planning Commission. Any questions to staff at this time from Planning Commission? I'll defer to staff. Is there a means of allowing, I've seen several hands up. Is there a means for allowing anybody else from the public to... I mean, kind of close the public comment period, but that's your, I mean, if you would like to open back up. I mean, I think we understand the intent of the neighbors. And certainly I've heard each and every one of y'all as well as several emails. So at this time, if there are no further questions for the applicant or staff, I think I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the site plan with staff comments located at 750 and 754, self that line along with the 1400 block of Michael Lane. Have a motion to approve. Can I get a second? Hearing no second. Is that, we gotta turn to another motion. And Mr. Chair. Yes. You know, whatever motion the commission makes is their purview, but for the record, if there is a motion to deny, there needs to be some type of, I would recommend that there be some type of direction as to why the plan is being denied. Sure. I mean, I'll... Because of the, and tie that to what specifics of the code do not meet. I'm sorry, I say. Especially what part of the code does the plan not meet if there's an impact or whatever you, if you're gonna deny it, you need to, I would just recommend that you tie it to a reason that you're denying it. Understood. To what reason that they're not meeting them. That's what I'm saying. Can we get that document? So we still have a motion on the table to approve the site plan as presented. Not hearing a second. So, is there a secondary motion? I mean, I can say that I would have supported it at 17 versus 19, and I understand that you're already decreasing the number and that you could have done more. I'm very clear about that. I guess my sense is that in terms of that collaboration or acceptance with the neighborhood and the understanding that that's a piece of, you're here for a site plan review and the neighborhood has input. And when the neighborhood has input and they're that strongly against it, if there's some level of compromise that you can show that is substantive and addresses the real concerns of the neighborhood, I guess I've, you know, like I said, I wasn't expecting that you would go to 10 or that you would accept someone else's, you know, drawing of what you should do. I understand that, but I don't. Yes, ma'am. So I'm a little confused because we're abiding by the zoning ordinance. So there's nothing that we're asking that's outside of what's permitted. So I would welcome feedback from the planning commission as to why the hesitation, I mean, I completely understand the concerns of the neighborhood association, but we're abiding by what's an ordinance. So I would just like to hear some more of if I made the justification. Lucinda, can I second? Can we go ahead and second for the original amendment so we can just go ahead and do the vote? I guess we can, yeah. I mean, if you don't want to put the motion back on the table, you could do that. Sure, so we have a motion to approve the site plan I was presenting. Is there a second? A second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor, signified by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Well, let's say no. No. Can we do a roll call, please? Yeah. Mr. Frost. Mine was yes. Ms. James. Yes. Mr. Kohn. No. Ms. Davis. No. Ms. Hartz. No. Dr. Mendoff. No. Ms. Thomas. No. And Mr. Tupper. No. Okay, the motion fails. The motion fails. Thank you. What's that? So since the motion failed, we need another motion. Yeah, I mean, a real motion. Oh. We've got a denying motion. A failing motion is not the same as denying the project, right? Right. So we need an alternative motion. Oh, yeah. Okay, I got you. So that motion has failed. Is there an alternate motion? Ms. Mendoff, Dr. Mendoff, if 17 would do it for you, Ms. Adams, would it do it for you? I mean, if you want to propose, I don't know what we can do right now, but if there's a possibility for you to, you know, if the staff would agree that you could change it to 17 and we could vote on that, I mean, I would approve that. But that's me. That's possible. We're not, we're not in the negotiating. That's not what's going on right now. I actually, I don't think it's fair to do that. And I apologize. I just, when you said that there was 17, I thought that's great, you've compromised. And I know that's not what the neighborhood want, but it is a compromise. So I was just addressing the fact that that would have been something I would have accepted. I understand that you would like to move this forward. I don't know where it goes from here, but I don't think this is a negotiation process for the number of lots. So I understand what you're saying. And I appreciate you're addressing it because I know you would like to move this forward. I think we should make a motion to defer the project to allow the applicant to continue discussions with staff and the neighborhood, correct? I mean, I don't know where else it's gonna go. Or I would like to put a motion out. Okay. I make the motion that we approve the applicant's site plan at 750 and 754 South Beltline Boulevard with the following condition that they work with staff to reach a 17 lot number. And in accordance with the rest of the comments from staff. Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor of Sigma five, I say an aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say no. I mean. Nay. Okay. That's. I think we need to have a motion and a second. And then if we can have further discussions. Okay. And then do a roll call. So we got a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? I guess the only thing I want to clarify with staff is this, can we, is this possible? Can we do this at this time? Okay. Just clarifying. I just want to make sure. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? From a staff standpoint, could, if you could give us some direction as to where the reduction in the lots needs to be in the plan. Can we pull the map back up? What was that? Of the lots. I would like to see that again. Is there some discussion on? I mean, I don't, I don't feel like I'm in a position to tell the developer where to, where to rebuild. There's two lots that you was initially planning on. Reduced by two and increased lot size. I mean, that's what was awesome. It was the only thing that could happen. So, I mean, I don't know. Reduced by two and increased lot size. You want to amend your motion? I would amend it to be a reduction at lot one and lot 11. Got a motion. Can I get a second? Second. Was that where they were talking about the two from the community? The two ones that were going to be initially removed? No, it's going to take a little bit longer. Okay, so second. All right, any further discussion? Yes, I have a question. So, when these two lots 11 and seven are taken off or resizing the remaining lots, would be my question. Yes, ma'am, if that's in the motion. I would have the expectation of the lots. It would be distributed across the lots. Yes, sir. Can you not do this legally? Because you're not allowed to get another input into this. We went through public input. We went through public input. And we're in a, ma'am, we're in a motion stage. We got a motion on the table, we got a second. We don't, is there any further discussions? Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. Nay. Can I get a roll call, please? Sure. Mr. Frost. Yes. Ms. James. Yes. Mr. Cohn. Yes. Ms. Davis. Yes. Ms. Hartz. No. Dr. Mendele. Yes. Ms. Thomas. Yes. And Mr. Tupper. No. The motion passes six to two. The motion passes. Can we go ahead and move to other business? Yes, sir. Please, we still have more business to do. Other business? The only thing that we've got in other business is that, I just wanna let y'all know we're actually changing the regular schedule of the Planning Commission starting in January of 2022. Instead of the first Monday of the month, which we've been doing for a long time, the meetings are going to be on the second Thursday of each month at 4 p.m. This is sort of an effort to be consistent with all of our land use boards and commissions. Currently, the Board of Zoning Appeals meets on the first Thursday of the month at 4 p.m. Currently, our DDRC meets on the second Thursday, but they're gonna be scooting to the third Thursday. So the Planning Commission will be the second Thursday of the month. So just please adjust your calendars accordingly. Hopefully this will work for everybody. And this just has the associated deadlines for applicants to return in applications. I think the only thing I would ask is if somebody from city staff could send calendar invites for these dates to get on our calendars, that'd be great. Any other business? Here and now I'll accept the motion that we adjourn. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. Second. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, no? Meeting is adjourned.