 Good afternoon. We will call to order the October 2018 City of Columbia Planning Commission meeting. Welcome to all. We'd like to welcome Planning Commission members, staff, and guests. I would like to ask everyone now to turn their cell phones and PDAs to the silent or vibrate mode. The Administrator will now proceed with the roll call. Mr. Tupper? Here. Ms. Mandel? Here. Mr. Frost? Here. Ms. Hartz? Here. Mr. Cohn? Here. Mr. Stigemeier? Here. Ms. James? Here. Mr. Weitz? Here. And Mr. Dolphin? Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. I will now briefly review the meeting format. Applicants with requests before the Planning Commission are allowed at a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include, but is not limited to, an overview of the project, case history, and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicants, such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by Planning Commission or staff regarding requests. Members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns in intervals of two minutes. The Administrator has a timer and will make presenters aware when their time has expired. The Planning Commission reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case-by-case basis. The Consent Agenda. The Planning Commission uses the Consent Agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a 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 would like to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda, that item is removed from the Consent Agenda and considered during the meeting. The Planning Commission then approves remaining Consent Agenda items. The Administrator will now read the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda this evening consists of two items. The first item is the approval of the September 5th, 2018 minutes, and the second item is a site plan review for 2300 Elmwood Avenue, which is a record request for a site plan review for a three-story 58-unit multifamily building. Do any Commission members or guests today wish to have any items on the Consent Agenda removed and placed on the regular agenda? I'd like to ask for a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. I'll in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Consent Agendas approved. We will now proceed with the regular agenda, and I would also like today to remind everyone when they come forward to please state their name clearly before speaking. Your third item for this evening is 16 Pendleton Street. It is a minor amendment to a plan unit development. It is located in a PUDC, and it also is in the design development review area as well as designated as DP in the design and preservation area. Any questions for staff from the Commission? Is there anyone, any guests that would like to speak? I'd ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the minor amendment to the PUD at 16 19 Pendleton Street. We have a second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Motion's passed. Your third item this evening is a major amendment to a plan unit development. This is for 33 19 Millwood Avenue. It is an amendment for the plan unit development of Commercial District PUDC. And the applicant is here. Before we begin, I'm sorry. Before we have the applicant, are there any questions for staff? Good evening. My name is Raymond Perkins. I'm Director Facilities for Richland One. And tonight we want to bring before you the proposed amendments to the PUD that is located at Jury High School. We're certainly appreciative of the opportunity to bring it to you. We have worked very hard with the city staff, city council, and we do have an agreement that we bring forward outlining how this particular development will be developed. At this time, I'm going to ask that the architect for the project comes up and give you details of that agreement and outline how we intend to proceed. Thank you. Do we have a site plan that we can share with everybody? So while that's coming up, my name is Doug Quackenbush, Quackenbush Architects and Planners. We've been involved in this project for a couple of years now, working through the details as many of you are aware. I thought the easiest way, this is the drawing I was looking for, the easiest way to kind of give you a quick overview is to go in the order of the mediation agreement which summarizes the discussions that we had during that mediation that Mr. Perkins was referring to. So the first significant shift in this new plan from previous studies is shifting the tennis courts to the southeast corner of the site by shifting those tennis courts that allowed us to shift the position of the practice field, which is the lynchpin to making the whole plan work. So you can see those tennis courts, five of them again in that southeast quadrant that also puts them on a most public portion of the property. That allowed the multi-purpose field to be shifted further away from Andrew Road and from Michigan in its current position. What ties it to its north-south axis is we are required to have emergency vehicle access that goes around the school and that set the datam line for how it's positioned north and south. East and west, we pushed it as far west as we could, but the third tenet of the plan is the reconfiguration of the bus loop on site, which you can see there is kind of the vertical oval. We had to work with several governing agencies that dictate the requirements of bus loops, including the office and school facilities for the state, DOT, et cetera. So we jumped on this new idea and tightened it as much as we could so that we could accommodate that shift to the west. We also reconfigured the existing parking lot that is located there to the west of the campus. Removed some islands that used to contain trees. Those trees have gone away in the 12 or 13 years since the school was built to increase parking, given that we took away parking, the teacher parking lot that is where the proposed field will be located. We have created what we're calling an arboretum, which is on the northern portion of the site. What you see on your drawing has actually been amended. That fence line has shifted due to the neighborhood's request. It's now going from corner to corner, so it just increases that arboretum section a little bit more from what you see on that plan. Nonetheless, the concept is that's fenced off. It gets additional landscape screening and is essentially mostly inactive and controlled. Lots of conversations about the mechanism to accomplish this. Originally, we were looking to get rid of the pud, because we thought that was the only avenue available to us. Another breakthrough in the mediation is to establish a mixed use pud, which allows the pud requirements to remain in effect and be amended per this document. You'll see to the extreme west a grass area that is designated for residential. There is no current plans to build anything on that. That is simply allowing us to maintain a mixed use pud instead of a single use pud. Lots of requirements in the document about further changes would be vetted in a systematic process, the language I think you see in front of you. Lots of conversation about lighting. The lighting has been vetted. The district has committed to spending additional monies to ensure that we have LED lighting for both the tennis courts and the multipurpose field. That allows us to control light pollution much more exactly and keep the light on the field and not leaking off the site. Also, requirements about no sound systems, limitation of bleacher heights and other details which I won't get into, but can answer those questions if you have them. I think those are the major concepts that are captured in the plan. If you have any questions, be happy to accept those. In the first proposal, were there lights on the field and on the tennis courts? Yes. Were there stands for the... Yes. The difference between the initial proposal and this one is more specificity on how we're doing the lighting and more limitations on the scale of the bleachers. What about the parking? Because it says there's... I'm reading it correctly, there's 381 spaces. But if you fill up this field, I thought this was going to be a practice field. That's exactly what it is. It's a practice field with turf. The revised parking count is 381. That's down from about 413 previously. The teacher parking lot that currently exists to the north of the school where the practice field is shown goes away. We were able to pick up some of those parking spaces by reconfiguring the student lot, removing islands, making it a little bit more efficient. Of course, you see a finger of new parking that extends to the residential lots on the west. So if it's a practice field, why do you need a scoreboard? I'm thinking down the road what this could become. Okay. A lot of that is covered in the mediation agreement in terms of uses. The intent is there would be JV games occasionally hosted at this site, which is the reason for the bleachers and the reason for the scoreboard, but there is no longer a press box, there's no longer a sound system. It's very limited use and limited in terms of time today as well. I have a question. You've referenced the mediation agreement a few times. I don't know if you're the best person to address that or if Mr. Perkins is the best person to address that, but that's a different wrinkle than the last three times that this came forward. Has there been a mediation? I'd like to hear a little bit about that and who the stakeholders were at the table on that. Yes, sir. As a result of the presentation that we made to Council at the last time, it was a result of that that the mayor directed us to go into that mediation. I can't remember the name of the mediator, but the people involved was obviously Councilman Rickman, the mayor, members of the board, I think Ms. Harris, the chairwoman and Mr. Divine. And then there were several members from the community that was a part of that meeting as well. So that lasted all of about eight or nine hours that day. So is there an agreement that's been signed between the neighborhood, which clearly was the strife and where we're at today? There was a signed agreement. Yes. By whom? That'd be great. So do these parties represent everyone in the neighborhood and at the school? Yes. I believe that was the... Thanks, Dr. Heathwood community and also Melrose community as well. And part of the question that I asked is we were passed along as part of our pre-meeting materials, a bunch of letters from neighbors to the tune of probably 60 pages in opposition, and I just was trying to get my arms around if that was representing the majority or if that was just folks that may not have participated in that process. It was unclear to me by not seeing that agreement until just now. I'm not sure I have not seen or heard those letters, but certainly. Thank you. Any other questions right now? I'd like to call... Thank you. We will get back. I'd like to call any other guests who would like to come forward on the other side. We're going to try to do this, the people in supporting of it and there are people we've gotten emails and letters from who do not support it. So we want to try to have one go and then the other go so we can hear both sides. My name is Jim Gregory. Most of you already know I live at 812 Agile Road. I'm directly across the street from this facility. Let me say very first, I do not condone nor do I accept what is called a memorandum of intent. We were never advised what was in that. The people from the Heathwood Association that signed it, one in particular had absolutely no authority to sign it. It happened to be a neighbor and the co-presidents, we do question whether they should have signed it without giving it to the neighborhood. When this, if this thing happens, when I walk out my front door I will be looking at the back of a school board, the lights, the goalpost and the net that's going to go behind it. The glow from the lights, I don't care what kind of lights you put in there, it will affect the entire neighborhood. This whole memorandum of agreement and of intent, excuse me, none of the neighbors I have talked to believe in it. None of them accepted. It certainly wasn't any of the wishes that I had. The application is so full of holes that you could probably use it as a sieve. There's so many loopholes in there that they can come back and say, instead of this, we really want to do this and still be within the guidelines. The other thing is, I have been in my house since 1986. Yes, I was there in 2003 when all this started. And the whole agreement between the a whole deal between the neighbors and the Richland school board 1 and the district and the Dreyer, excuse me, was that there would be a buffer. Everything would be shifted to Millwood and there would always be a buffer between the school and the neighborhoods. They even made the statement at the time that they could not put anything in there because they didn't have the land to do it. Dreyer is sitting on less than 21 acres. His current guidelines for a elementary school is 25. For a middle school is 70. And for a high school is 75. They've got one third less land than they really need. This thing's gone on for two years. But one thing we are more resolved to do is make sure it does not happen now. I would urge you to deny this application for the fourth time because in 2003 we made a deal. And a deal is a deal. Thank you. Thank you. Someone supporting. Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I'm Toby Ward. I represented the two neighborhood associations who were a party to the mediation and the mediated agreement. First of all, if it's not already incorporated, I would ask that the mediated agreement be made a part of the record of the application. And I don't believe there's any reason that we shouldn't do that. Second of all, we, that is myself and the officers of both associations have compared the mediated agreement to the PUD application. And we do not find any glaring inconsistencies. We do reserve the right to continue to work with the district to address some things, particularly landscaping. We think that we can do some fine tuning there as well as mechanisms for the dissemination of information by the school district, not only to the neighborhood associations, but to the property owners who are immediately adjacent and contiguous to the school property. And so finally, what I want to say is this, the neighborhood associations do not intend to bind or limit the rights of any individual property owners. That was not the role of the neighborhood associations. Rather, our role was to address the issue with which we were confronted in its totality the effect on the total neighborhood and where this process would end up were the major amendments not to be moved through and the PUD were to collapse that would present a clear and present danger to the neighborhood and that's what this motivated this mediated agreement as well as the ability to count votes at council. And so again I urge you to listen to the residents who are affected and I urge you to consider that the neighborhood associations will abide by the mediated agreement. Be glad to answer any questions. I'd like to ask a question, Mr. Ward. As council for the neighborhood associations that you just referenced, there was a comment that was made previous to your remarks that the signatures were not authority, they were not the proper people to sign this agreement. Can you comment on that in any respect? It was my belief at the time that the neighborhood associations were properly authorized to participate in the mediation and that they were properly authorized to sign the mediated agreement. Otherwise we would not have gone to the mediated agreement and that issue came up prior to the mediated agreement and it was discussed and so I believe that there was proper authority for both neighborhood associations to sign that agreement understanding again it doesn't affect the rights of any individual property owner. Thanks Toby. Any other questions? I have a question. Reference to fear and present danger to the neighborhood if this pud mediation lapses. Well it goes something like this. The pud currently without the major amendment is flawed because it does not have a mixed use. If the pud were to be determined to be invalid then the property would revert to its original zoning which would mean that any changes to the property would be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals and that would not take it through council. So that was a problem. Second of all the citywide rezoning that's imminent would treat this as a type of property and thus use that would enable the district to have greater rights we believe with respect to the use of the property than are currently available to them under the pud and so if this pud goes away the neighborhood associations believe that they were exposed to substantial risk whether it was reverting to the original zoning or with what this would likely be rezoned under the new rezoning that's going to happen eventually. I have a question for staff. He brings up an interesting point. Should this not be approved today and it remains the existing pudc that's in place? What is it designated to in the new zoning and does that change by us considering this rezoning? So to answer the first part of your question your vote today is a recommendation to City Council so it's City Council who actually makes a decision to approve or deny this particular request. The second half of your question with regard to the new zoning as we've mentioned a lot of the public meetings and workshops with the planning commission the process is first to create the text and the districts and the second process will be to actually map it so at this time we have a draft of all the districts but we don't have a particular map so staff can answer the question of what the zoning would or would not be. So there's he's making an assumption then based on that comment. Yeah, that's his interpretation of how a map could be made for another. Any further questions? Thank you. Would someone, any of our guests like to come up and speak in favor of the neighborhood? Thank you. My name is Robert Crooks. I live on Christina. I've been here before because my wife is involved in the 2003 agreement. First of all let me say that the so-called mediation agreement. Sam and Mary Waters are co-presidents. Don Tudor is just a neighbor Fred Easley is Melrose Heights. They're like four individuals. Have no legal representation of the neighborhood I never saw any of this. It's never been discussed with me and they know full well that I've been against it since day one. So prior to the so-called mediation Mr. Sam Waters told me I can't make any decisions without discussing with the neighborhood. So if I go to a mediation I have to come out and talk with the neighborhood. He was not allowed that opportunity. So as far as I'm concerned the mediation is a farce. Well in 2003 the agreement was reached after a lengthy and arduous discussion. My wife was involved so was Mr. Perkins other school representatives. Chip Land was here at the time. Without this agreement this building Drill High School would not be sitting where it is and it would not have been built. Also in the agreement there was the buffer green space that was designated to protect the neighborhood. And I quote from the agreement. Possible use of undeveloped green space areas undesignated in the site plan shall remain as grassed areas. Physical changes to these areas such as paving for parking or additional sport surfacing is not anticipated. We went on that promise. How can anyone honestly and ethically permit destruction of the green space buffer by ignoring this 2001 agreement. Thank you. Well let me ask you a couple questions. It did not clearly state it could not be done. It just said it's not anticipated. You know that was a problem that my wife was there she said had I known that this would come up 15 years later. And I'll also mention for 15 years we've had a fairly peaceful coexistence with Drill High School. If they build this that's going to be destroyed. We'll go back to the way that it was when there was a ball field there. Were you invited to the mediation? No. I was given no opportunity and I have not had any discussion with any of the people that were there. And I think I've been intentionally excluded because they know that I have strong feelings against it. Thank you. Very briefly Mr. Chairman my name is Michael Burkett. I'm here on behalf of the Drear Parents specifically the Booster Club. We just wanted to note that we did participate in the mediation. It was nine hours but very productive and that we are in support of the design and the application and the rules that were set forth in the mediation. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening my name is John Brewton. I live at 3211 Michigan Street. With respect to the mediated document or memorandum understanding I'm not aware of a single resident of Michigan Street that was invited to participate in the mediation or has approved that document or otherwise is in favor of this plan. As you may know Michigan Street is comprised of small affordable homes for young families. Our respective front yards about 50 feet away from Drear's campus. And I think the residents of Michigan Street are continue to be very concerned about the specter of living next to a sports stadium. When I bought my house in 2016 I did it with the intent to live on Michigan Street for the indefinite future. However had I known that this proposal was in the works I never would have bought in that house. And I think this planning commission properly analyzed the land use issues the last three times something similar came up and you rejected it and I would respectfully request that you do the same tonight. And for the record both my mom and my sister played varsity sports to Drear High School and my family has been in support of Drear Athletics. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have any other guests who would like to come forward and speak tonight. Good evening I'm Foster Hazelden. I've spoken three previous times. I live at 827 Atcher Road with my wife and my two young sons. My three year old and my two year old. I've spoken previously about my history and my family history with Drear. It's pretty extensive. I had of course played soccer and golf. My brother played football. My sister played tennis and we all went to Drear when I was in Louis A.C. Flurips. I lived in the Walk Zone. If I remember those comments I won't belabor that point because I am fond of Drear. But I just want to point out and reiterate what Mr. Gregory said. My understanding from what's been reported in the state newspaper is that the ideal geographic footprint for an elementary school is 20 to 30 acres. A middle school is 50 and a high school is 100. So when you take out this very charged emotionally charged debate that's very political as we all know and you look at it it makes sense to put a stadium next to a small elementary school. Drear is 20.96 acres. And just think about that because I do question that and it's jammed in there. The buffer was there. Where's the buffer now? I've asked for two years for measurements. Never received them. I don't think that's a tall ask. It does make me question what will happen down the road. As an attorney I'm a federal litigator. Mediations are bound by the court rules or considerations exchange. That didn't happen here. And so you look at that it's only the only binding impact of that is your word and a deal is a deal as Mr. Gregory had said but it's not bound by the court rules and no consideration was exchanged. So there you go on that. Also I get very upset about the point of basically what people are saying is just sue. And I had a councilman Howard Duvall in my house and I said how do you tell me that my son who at that time was two how he's not going to be his quality life isn't going to be viscerated with the light shining in there. And he said to me at Foster I think about your family more than any other and I appreciate that. And then he said to me and I said so what's my remedy and he said to get a good lawyer. And is that the city we've become where we just hey just sue just sue just sue. I just don't think that's a good policy. But I'm opposed to this. I encourage you to please vote it down again. It's just too small 20.96 acres no measurements over two years of mediation that isn't really totally valid. And then the remedy is just sue the city everybody. I mean that's what we've become. I appreciate your time and talking to you the other four times as well. Any questions for me I'm happy to answer them. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question for staff. John Mr. Ward offered including the arbitration agreement or mediation agreement excuse me within the PUD. Is there any reason that has been excluded to point is there any impact of that statement. I'm curious why we're not we didn't see it in advance of today. Okay. Fair enough. But could it become part of the PUD application. You all could make it part of the record. Got it. Okay. Thanks. If there's no further questions. Yes sir. Thank you all Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon everyone. Craig Witherspoon superintendent Richmond one. First of all I want to say thank you to each and every one of you for the work that you do and the consideration we have been for before you several times and as has been stated we did receive direction from the mayor's office to go back to mediate and sit down and to hash some of these things out which we did and those things are represented in what we what's been presented to you this evening. Also beyond that Councilman Rickenman has gone back out according to him and had subsequent conversation with folks in the neighborhoods after this has happened and that resulted in some of the changes again that were spoken to this evening. So as the district we try to be good stewards good neighbors to listen to work together to see if we can't find a resolution in this regard and we feel as though we have done that listened and brought the recommendations back and forth both before the mediated agreement and then after that fact. I just wanted to make that clear and again thank you all for your time to see you. Thank you very much but anyone else like to come forward. Thank you. My name is Nancy Barksdale I live two blocks from Drear and I oppose this application. Before I get into my few remarks I do want to ask a question relative to something Mr. Cone I believe you asked about or maybe it was you what would this be re-zoned under the comprehensive 2018 plan. According to the case summary you had were provided it's my understanding that it would be zoned UCR 1 and if this proposal was presented under that zoning designation this application would have to go to BOSA to get approved. Is that correct? That would be a question for me to ask staff. And that's why I'm trying to clarify that. Sure so the UCR 1 is a land use classification not a zoning classification and the land use plan is a guide for how the land use should be distributed throughout the city and you can have multiple types of zoning applied to different land uses so there is no regulatory I guess neat so to speak or any regulatory perspective from that UCR 1 it's just basically a guiding document for planning for the city. So at this time we don't know what the zoning designation for this parcel will be. So the city has two documents that deal with land use one is the comprehensive plan which has a land use plan in it that's the UCR 1 and then we have the zoning which is a regulatory tool that tells you what you can do and how big the setbacks and bulk of the building and all those types of things we are rewriting our zoning code but we currently have the text drafted and the process that we're going to follow is we're going to present the text of the document to the community council will adopt the text and we'll go to part two which will be actually the mapping exercise so at this time it's too early to tell anyone what any one particular property in the city would its future zoning could be that would probably come out probably in the next year or so. Okay. The application before you tonight may look different but it is still the same. The school district is still trying to shoehorn competition sports fields tennis courts on a small piece of property hardly large enough for the elementary school. Plus they've added the 70-foot light poles and 600 bleacher seats. This amendment application is the school district's attempt to avoid going to Boza. Previously they've asked for an RS2 rezoning in that instance they would have to go to Boza and Boza has very strict criteria as to what can be approved to go for a special exception. This plan clearly will not pass Boza's criteria. That's why they've resorted to this rearrange the pud to make the pud a different pud the other comment I would make is as it relates to the mediation at the city council meeting in March when it came for a vote the mayor said you must go to mediation on your RS2 application. The neighbors were not invited to that meeting. The meeting was only set up a week before the mediation was to take place. Only the president of Melrose Heights where I am went to the meeting no other neighbors were asked to come and attend. The first it was a two-day meeting. Friday afternoon they had the meeting and the second part of the meeting was on Monday. In between that weekend I wrote to my president I wrote to the presidents of the Heathwood neighborhood association saying what is going on? I got no responses from anyone. We were not privy to the idea that all of a sudden an RS2 was going to now become a pud amendment. We got no feedback. So I take issue with the idea that this was something the neighbors bought in on not at all. I think that this commission has wisely denied the school district's applications three times prior. Nothing has been said tonight that would suggest those denials were wrong. An agreement is an agreement. I respectfully ask that you deny this application for the fourth time. Thank you. Good afternoon chairman and all the members of the planning committee. My name is Cheryl Harris and I serve as the chair of Richland County School District 1 Board of Commissioners and I've been fortunate to serve the entire four years on this project across our district. When we started this project, the purpose and the intent was to secure our practice fields as well as our stadiums and to add one additional stadium because our district is 500 square miles. We were putting a lot of students at risk with them traveling across town. Our tennis team there at Drear was having to drive 17 miles one way to a game. There were many games that we couldn't play. We had to move it because they had to get off the court so other planned events could use those fields. We sat down as a board with our superintendent and others and we started working on how we could address the issues that we were facing and the challenges in Richland 1 for all schools. In that discussion we decided to redo the Memorial Bolden and Lord Richmond stadium and add a new one to the sports mid-week because we don't have enough stadiums. The plan before you is not a stadium it is a multi-purpose field. Our stadiums seat five to six thousand people. They're huge. Huge scoreboards and everything else. This field is designed to do two things. To take care of our practice for our JV teams versus them driving over to Memorial and also address some of our JV games. I have a child that plays JV sports. You rarely have about 100 people there if that much. I was a part of the mediation in representing the school district along with our vice chair Mr. Divine and several others that have already spoken before you Mr. Burkett and some others that were present. In that discussion it was a very healthy conversation between what we assumed to be the leaders of the neighborhoods because it was related to them. My desire was to come to an agreement that does two things. Take care of the children of Richland one and take care of our neighbors. I live by those rules. I cannot control what may have happened back in 2003 because I wasn't in the seat that I sit now. But I sat in that meeting in good faith as the leader of this district and worked out an agreement with the neighbors leaders and in that agreement I joyfully sat in that meeting and after we completed that document Councilman Rickerman came back and he shared with us that they wanted some other adjustments. I've had numerous meetings making those adjustments. The wording, the arboretum, they wanted it 30 feet whatever we're going to do that. There's a wall that we're going to increase the height because it was ass and the goal is one thing is to take care of the kids and also I respect that. I respect that. But at the same time I have the responsibility of making sure that the students have safe passage. We have after school tutoring for our athletes. It's all but impossible for our students to go through the athletic tutoring and get to practice fields versus being able to do what all of the other students in our other six high schools are allowed to do. And that is have school, grab a quick snack after school, go into their tutoring and then go out to the practice fields. The purpose of this field this is not a stadium it's no way near a stadium. It barely seats 200 people on one side and I believe 400 on the other at the request of the neighbors that asked us to take the total down. They even asked that we take the bleachers and make them longer so they wouldn't be as high so that you could not see into the neighbors home and we did that. They asked us to not have sound and we did that. They asked us to lower the lights and we did that and everything that has been requested of this district we have done that and we've done that in good faith because we're trying to take care of two things our neighbors and our children. So I'm asking you on today if you would consider this proposal for the sake of the children that we care about so deeply at Drear and also for our neighbors and of course I know everyone is not going to be happy. I understand that but I want the community to know and I want you all to know as a planning committee this district has done everything within its power to make adjustments to accommodate the requests that have been made to us. We have not denied those because we do care about our neighbors so on today I'm just asking that you support this plan for the sake of the students that we serve there at Drear High School. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to come forward? Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the commission my name is Robert Patterson I've lived on Devereux Road since 1972 we moved to Devereux Road so that our children could go to Drear High School and both of our children Rob Jr. and Anne are product of Richland One system. Metafield Atlas Road Brandon Drear so please don't perceive me as an enemy of school district one I'm a supporter of school district one I've volunteered to talk to students and classes at Drear High School I'm a retired professor of history at USC so I've taken my road show to Drear High School on occasion but you've received my letter my wife and I feel the same as we have every time school district has brought this matter before you I'll just make a few points one this is basically under a new guise the same proposal that you have voted down three times it calls itself as an amendment but it is basically restructuring this property as it did in previous proposals number two this proposal will have the same negative effect on the neighborhood in terms of sound light, traffic that the other proposals had number three there is the impression because the perimeter of this property is planned for shrubbery and 30 foot trees and the like that somehow the negative effects of the multi-purpose use of this property will be contained in that space but anybody who knows anything about sound and light traffic knows that it's not going to be contained in that space this greater Heathwood Melrose and also please remember the south side and southwest side of Melwood avenue nobody is representing them please keep this in mind this is a special place to live in Columbia close to business and education thank you for your time and attention thank you anyone else want to come forward I would like to thank everyone tonight is there someone I'm Martha Fowler I live in Melrose Heights I wanted to clarify a couple of things that I just felt like y'all maybe you're a little unclear about how the mediation happened there was mediation there was only one person from Melrose we have over 500 houses in our neighborhood there was only one person invited only one person told where the meeting would be and when it would be there was also one person from Shandon they had a voice and have nothing that touches it there were two people from Heathwood who were invited there was one that just evidently found out and showed up it probably was wise to not let everybody know when the mediation would happen because things have been so fiery for over two years it has been an uncomfortable situation I personally feel like it should never have come up because it was an agreement made when Drear was built that this would not happen I am a huge advocate of Drear we moved into my grandmother's house so that my children could go to Drear Drear is a wonderful school at the time my children went academics were more important than sports but sports are equally as important to an awful lot of people I felt like y'all needed some clarification about how the mediation was happened there were a lot of people that were not included in it and that's why you have so many people stepping forward now to say but I didn't have a voice you all are our voice I too have questions there was a meeting that was held at Heathwood the other night at Heathwood Park and someone said why do we have to have 600 seats as Harris just said she goes to JV games all the time and they usually have 100 people there why are we spending that much money to have 600 seats when normally you have 100 people that come I think that maybe the neighborhoods might feel more comfortable if we didn't have 600 to 800 seats I don't know how you're going to come to an answer to this it's a situation that I feel has been very detrimental to the community I appreciate what y'all are doing but I just felt like you needed a little clarification thank you thank you Mr. Chairman can we ask if either Sam Waters, Dr. Mary Baskin Waters Fred Easley or Donald Tudor are here yeah may we ask you how was notification sent to are you, I'm sorry can you share with us how the notification was provided to the rest of the neighbors normally do notifications to the neighborhood through an email system in regard to the mediation City Council directed the mediation and when we went to the mediation we didn't find out about it until I want to say it was just a few days prior to the event and I think that that was the intent was to have the mediation originally with one representative from the neighborhood from Melrose, one from Heathwood one or two people from the school district one from Shannon it was supposed to only be four or five people but one and the mayor were the ones that were putting this together we did not find out who was invited to this until basically a day or two before this happened and the reason for it quite frankly was when you have 20 30, 40 people you're never going to reach consensus on anything our neighborhood originally voted against the plan as it was originally presented three or four iterations ago I met with my executive committee and we had discussed the best way to move forward based on the information that we had available which would be one representative and assuming that then I was voted as the individual that would go in and represent the neighborhood's interest at that point I believe the same thing happened with Sam and Mary Waters with their executive committees I can't speak for them, they're not here but Toby Ward is the attorney that is hired by both Melrose Neighborhood Association or Heathwood to represent us at the mediation and provide assistance when we met at the mediation we went through all of these things and we worked all this out in good faith having said that there will be people that are not going to be happy with what we came to it's just going to be that way we actually have about 650 residents in Melrose and it's comprised of three neighborhoods Melrose Heights Oak Lawn Fairview so we're a pretty large conglomeration we've had meetings over the last two and a half years to address this type of stuff and we'll send an email out and the people that show up are the people that show up you can't push a rope we've done the best that we can to let people know we have a Facebook page we have an email that was sent out we've done what we can do so an email was sent out before the meeting inviting some people to the meeting you said the executive the mediation was directed to us by city council by the mayor and by a councilman recommend did they limit how many people were to come yes how many people were there total maybe what, 17, 15 well we've got a list Mr. Taylor was there John Taylor was there Doug Quackenbush Kristen Hampton was there as well Missy Gentry and the mediator was Judge Thomas Cooper from down in Charleston I believe or he's retired but that list was put together by the mayor and councilman recommend and they did that specifically to we only had a limited amount of time to try and get something done and the more people you add to something it's to get anything completed and so honestly I'm pretty sure most of us had no clue who was going to be there until the last minute when we got the invite thank you I've got a question actually this is for the association is your position a voted in position or how are you guys organized? yes it's voted in we are a corporation actually it's the Melrose neighborhood association we're recognized by the Secretary of State's office I'm voted in I got voted in again back in 2017 and I'll be off in 2019 I kind of regret that I didn't that I was here for this one but again it's just part of the job but to answer your question yes we're formally recognized by the city under however the city does that council of neighborhoods and the Secretary of State's office and all that stuff first of all Mr. Ms. Waters could not be here Mr. Waters is on the board of the American Mortgage Bankers Association or some trade organization which is having its annual convention in Asheville so that's where they are today they regret very much not being here they are officially the historic Heathwood neighborhood association and that association obtained a historic overlay designation for the Heathwood area they solicited some folks to attend the mediation with them but as Mr. Easley said we were instructed not to bring a large crowd there was one person other than Mr. and Ms. Waters who attended that was Donald Tudor he is not here today but he is a resident of the Heathwood area lives right next door to Mr. Hazelton on Adger and they did the best they could at the mediation signed the agreement afterwards they released the results of the mediation to the neighborhood through their normal means of disseminating that information I think they've had two neighborhood meetings since that time where this agreement was addressed and Mr. Rickman was in attendance as well as another council member and they've also had board meetings both before and after this mediation to address this situation so that's the basis of the corporate authority as best I can relate to you Sam and Mary Waters not being here so they actually had the authority to sign for the historic Heathwood area that's apparently disputed but I've reviewed the corporate documents and that's what we concluded but they don't speak for any individual property owner they simply speak for the neighborhood association and as you can tell there are property owners who are very much opposed to this and that's not unusual in neighborhood associations I do have one question Mr. Ward so there were two meetings after this was executed amongst the neighborhoods who organized those meetings and the historic Heathwood and Melrose neighborhood associations and this was presented at those meetings both of them I believe were held at Heathwood Park the media was actually judged Tommy Cooper from Manny I believe not from Charleston but he is a retired circuit judge and it did take all day I'd like to reiterate again the mediation was a two day process Friday afternoon and then again on Monday over that weekend none of the attendees at the mediation provided any information to the neighbors to say this is what we're about to agree to there was no discussion because I can assure you the neighbors never would have signed that agreement in fact most neighbors after they saw that hammered home why did y'all not get up and walk out of that meeting this is not what the neighborhoods wanted we never got an answer other than they felt intimidated so I just want you to understand the attendees did not confide in the neighbors this was just given to us did you elect these attendees no I did not and what I do know is the mayor's office sent out an invitation which indicated everyone who was being invited to the meeting and it included the Melrose president it included the self-appointed presidents of Heathwood and it included the Heathwood neighbor and those are the four that we knew who attended it defies logic to me again that's why I'm asking y'all to please deny this application thank you I'd like to just make one point clear the mediation was held on Thursday April the 12th one day we started early that morning and at the end of the day the document was signed at that point if there was any other meetings after it I'm not aware of anything else before that was signed it was signed that day thank you it was Friday the party signed the mediation agreement I don't think Toby referenced this the Heathwood executive board approved the mediation agreement Friday night and it was all consummated and dispersed to the parties on Monday so we only met one day but it turned into getting the final agreement to the parties on Monday after the Heathwood executive board approved it Friday night well we're not a court of law but we're just trying to get all the facts so we can make a fair decision for everyone and while I'm saying that delivered your comments very professionally and we appreciate that as a commission if there are at this time no other guests who wish to come forward I'd like to ask for a motion before we get to that I want to ask John a question you made a comment to me before that we're a recommending body to counsel is that true in an amendment to a PUD as well as it is with a zoning reclassification okay yeah it's very clear in this in the ordinance that I just wanted everybody to hear that that we're not a jurist I'll ask for a motion please do I have a second any further discussion all in favor signify by saying aye aye anyone oppose let's go with a hand vote please we have the the ayes first we're approved Doug we told you we'd give it back to you you almost left without it we'll continue with our meeting the only other item on your agenda this evening is other business I just want to remind you that you have a work session later this week it is at noon to probably 1 1 30 and then we also have two public meetings that we hope to see each of you at one of them they are Wednesday and Thursday for the comprehensive plan is at the Richland Library in the auditorium on the first floor from 5 o'clock to 8 and the Thursday meeting is at Eau Claire print building also from 5 to 8 so we hope to see you then can I ask you a question about that John sure are these formal meetings that begin at 5 or are they a drop in type of situation they are a drop in situation so the format of the meeting essentially there'll be different stations throughout the entire room we'll actually have a couple terminals so that you can do the online survey if you don't want to do it from home there's actually a video like a 101 on what is comprehensive planning there's lots and lots of different information every station has an interactive activity for the public to engage in and provide comments so you can come for 10 minutes or you can come for an hour at any time in the 5 to 8 window excellent it is I believe Thursday Thursday at noon and we'll have sandwiches for you is there one November 4th also and then so that's for the comprehensive plan and then in November we are going to have a couple different work sessions because at the end of October we're going to be getting the draft of the zoning code back and so we're going to have a number of workshops for you to review that document since it is a larger document so we're going to be meeting before the regular Planning Commission meeting then we'll be meeting on the 12th if you're comfortable on the 12th with the document then you'll see the document in December if you need another meeting we will meet again the week after Thanksgiving before the December meeting the goal is to get the document moving from Planning Commission into City Council public hearings after the first of the year okay if there's I'd like to get a motion to adjourn it has to be they got approved