 Okay, welcome to the city planning commission meeting of February 1st, 2021. 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 are Lucinda Statler, planning administrator, Rachel Bailey, the zoning administrator, Jonathan Chambers, land development administrator and Andrew Livinggood annexation coordinator. During the meeting, you'll see live images or still images of planning commission members and the administrator. However, images of the applicant and public will not be visible. The public will be able to participate via three methods in addition to watching. Folks can email in, phone in or log into the web session. And when participating, please provide your name for documentation purposes. To watch the meeting, the public may stream the meetings through city TV accessed at www.youtube.com slash user slash Columbia SC government. The public may also submit letters and statements via email to COC board meeting 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 also participate via phone. You may call 855-925-2801. And when prompted, please enter the meeting code 9456. And we'll do a roll call. Mr. Frost. Here. Ms. James. Here. Mr. Kuhn. Here. Ms. Davis. Here. Mr. Hart. Here. Ms. Hartz. Here. Dr. Mandel. Here. And Mr. Tupper. Here. We have a quorum. I'll give a brief review of the meeting format. Applicants with requests before planning commission are allotted 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 the 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 does have a timer and will make presenters aware of when their time has expired. The planning commission reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case by case basis. The planning commission uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial 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 meeting. The planning commission then approves the remaining consent agenda items. The items for the consent agenda this evening consist of the approval of the January 4th, 2021 minutes. With one edit, staff member Lee de Forth was present at the January meeting and is not listed. So we're gonna make that change. I'm not aware of any other changes. Then the next item is a request for site plan approval for the construction of an educational building at Midlands Technical College. This property is zone C3, general commercial. The third item is a request for approval of a group development sign for caliber collision. This is at 7451 Garner-Sperry Road and the properties are zone C3. And sorry, let me just go back to number two. I don't think I read the address. This is for 316 North Beltline Boulevard. That's the Midlands Tech Building and that concludes 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 from the public that would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda? Again, when participating, please provide your name for the minutes. Please communicate by sending an email to COC board meeting at columbiasc.gov. Please communicate via phone by pressing star two to leave a voicemail or star three to speak in person. We will pause to allow communication from the public. The phone number is 855-925-2801 and that meeting code is 9456. Do we have any emails or any callers on the line associated with the consent agenda? Hi, Mr. Chair, this is Andrew Livinggood. Yes. Regrettably, we're having a few issues with the public input site. It actually just dropped the bridge. So I'm working on that right now. I do know there are some callers on the line, however, I believe they are for other items on the agenda, but bear with me just a moment. Okay. Thanks, Andrew. In the meantime, I do not see any emails that have come through, except for one that's somebody trying to get through via the public input meeting. Okay. So we'll just wait on that for another moment. Hello, this is Andrew. Can y'all hear me? Yes. We can hear you, Andrew. Okay. Hold on a second. I've got to mute myself. Okay, it looks like we may be trying to forward some folks on a telephone call that we can then put on the speaker. Make sure they're for the consent agenda, though. Sorry about the wait, you guys. Should probably get some jeopardy music to play. Let's see. Oh, y'all, can you hear me? Yeah. Okay, I apologize, I'm talking to you right now through Zoom and I actually have the folks with public input working on it. And I'm going to see what we're going to do here. I don't believe anyone that is trying to get through is getting through about the consent agenda, but they certainly are trying to get to get through on the regular agenda cases. We need that thing here. Sorry about that feedback. That's okay. And so is it confirmed that none of the callers on the line are for the consent agenda? But bear with me just for a moment. Okay. I want to email the COC board meeting email. Have you all checked with him as to which case he was trying to call before? I have seen one. I've seen two emails on the board meeting email. One of them was somebody who just wanted to get up. Their case was on the consent agenda. So I'm going to try to reset the grid with public input and Zoom. What might happen is it might end up taking everyone off of public input. So we'll need to call back in. But if someone on your end could do me a favor and unmute the public input line when it comes in, that would be helpful. So bear with me for a moment. So Andrew, do you need me to do something on a meeting? I think I can hear you now. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Yeah. Okay, good. That's the progress. Let's see. I don't think I have audio on anywhere else. Let me make sure I don't. Are you still getting feedback? Not now. Well, wait a minute. It looks like you're muted, but public input is not muted. So I think that's what you needed it to be, right? That's correct. Yes. Okay. So I will say for the regular meeting, there are some folks I know that need to get through and we will try to connect them as best as possible. We're aware of some of those persons so we can reach out to them. Again, to my knowledge, no one is calling about the consent agenda. Okay. Maybe we can go ahead and move forward with a motion on that one. Okay, yeah. Having no emails and no phone calls regarding the consent agenda, can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda please? Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda. This is April James. Got a motion. Can I get a second please? Second. Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The motion is approved. Thank you. The planning commission will now move forward with those items on the regular agenda. We'll 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, voice 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. So the first item on the regular agenda is the reconsideration of annexation 2020-0027. This is 1307 Mason Road. And so what happened, this was on the agenda for the January planning commission meeting and similar to what we're having some trouble tonight, there were some, a couple of folks on the public input platform that did not show up until the meeting had adjourned. So in order to allow them to speak on this case, we were asking that the planning commission reconsider this case. And so the first thing we would need is for the commission to make a motion to reconsider and then we can move forward with that action item. Okay. So can I get a motion to reconsider the annexation 2020-0027 1307 Mason Road? Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion for reconsideration of the annex 2020-0027 at 1307 Mason Road. Got a motion. Can I get a second? Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is approved. So we'll just walk through the slides as we did last time. This is a request for a recommendation to assign land use classification of an urban edge multi-family and assign a zoning of general residential RG2 for appending annexation at 1307 Mason Road. Here's the property on the aerial. Here is the property. You can see where North Main Street is and I-20 and the adjacent land use. And then here's the current zoning map. And are there any, I guess, questions that we'll find out, I guess, in a minute whether we can get on with that. Do we have any questions from the Planning Commission members? Hearing none, we'll move over to public comment. We encourage those who would like to comment via email or the web to begin sending in letters and emails. Again, the email is cocboardmeeting at columbiasc.gov or on the web at publicinput.com slash cocpc-february. For those wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live, please call 855-925-2801. When prompted, please enter the meeting code 9456. Then press star two to leave a voicemail or press star three to speak live. Please be sure your computer audio is off to avoid feedback. Hi, Mr. Chair, I do have at least one of the callers connected and I'm gonna try to unmute him right now. Unless you wanted to hear from the applicant first, who may be on the call with y'all. I think we can go either way. Does anybody from Planning Commission need to hear from the applicant? Hearing none, I think we can go straight into public comment and if you can put the caller through. Okay, hold on a moment. Hello, Mr. Gary. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Hello. Okay, yes. Okay, Mr. Chair, members of the City of Columbia Planning Commission and staff, good afternoon. I'm Charles Gary, a real estate developer, a resident of Mount Columbia. While I'm in agreement with the proposed annexation, I cannot support the proposed zoning. To give a developer a license to develop 36 and a half acres of land with an RG2 classification is beyond me. It would allow the property to potentially be developed with 598 units on North Main Street. North Main Street is one of the gateways to the city. You know, while there's a need for additional housing in the Columbia area, but to me it's unthinkable to give a developer the license to develop that many units at one of the gateways. You know, I look at what has happened along 215 and the dedicated efforts, efforts that the Columbia International University is making to clean up 215. And I'm wondering, whatever happened to the North Main Street study that was commissioned by the City of Columbia several years ago, what happened to that study is it only shifts in place and I'm pretty sure that study does not include this many units on that site or any site along North Main Street. I believe the City of Columbia and the community would be better served with a mixed residential use on this property rather than allowing the developer a license or free ticket to put another project right at one of our gateways. With that in mind, I strongly, I strongly would suggest the now of the request for the RG2 zoning. I don't know whether the annexation and the zoning are hand in hand, but I think the annexation, I think Columbia needs to expand its boundaries. I think this property is an idea for annexation along with North Tunnel and Terrace and some other areas out in the North Columbia area. I think needs to be annexed into the city. Think of clear, this would also will lead to steps to doing those kinds of things and close up some of the dominoes that has been created. I thank you for your time and I thank you for your consideration. And Mr. Chairman, I do have an email that has just come through regarding this case. This is from Harold Murray, a resident of the Greenview community. He says, I'm requesting that the zoning request for 1307 Mason Road be denied for the following reasons. The location of this property is a major gateway into the city of Columbia being located at the intersection of I-20 and North Main Street. This development will be Rivers Edge times four. This city of Columbia has spent tens of millions of dollars developing the Trestle District. Why would you allow a Rivers Edge be the front door to the city of Columbia on its main entrance to the city? This is a long-term decision. Once the development is constructed, the city of Columbia will be stuck for years with unattractive entrance to the city. That's the end of the email. I don't have any others at this point. We follow up questions from the Planning Commission for staff. And Lucinda, just to be clear, this approval for annexation includes rezoning, correct? Correct, it's a recommended, yes, zoning, construct and land use for the property that will be annexed. And the staff recommendation is approval. Lucinda, a quick question. Could they get another land classification that wouldn't give them such a broad leadway of putting so many houses up? Um, I mean, at this time, that's the current recommended land use and zoning that the applicant is asking for. They certainly could, I mean, make a different proposal. But at this time, that's the one that we are considering today. Thank you. I think somebody mentioned the applicant was on the line. Maybe it is worth hearing from the applicant to talk a little bit about their plans with the zoning. I guess, Lucinda, it's also my understanding that a site plan would come through for review at some point too, correct? Absolutely, that would happen later in the day. Is there a request? Is the applicant on the line and available to answer any questions? I can't tell. Lucinda, while you're talking about that, is there a way that you could address the process of the site plan review so that members of the public who are listening in have an understanding of what the process would be before there could be any building on that property? Yeah, that's absolutely. So basically when a development proposal is put together by the applicant, that would be submitted to the city. And it would be reviewed by all of the agencies within the city that look at proposals that particularly residential developments that looks at circulation, access, traffic studies. It would be looked at in accordance with the zoning regulations. The fire marshal would look at it from public safety standpoint. And all of those agencies would look at the proposal in terms of how it meets or does not meet the city technical review process. And then that would come before the planning commission for a site plan approval. And Jonathan Chambers administers that process. I don't know if he wants to chime in on that. But just to know, Lucinda, when, so before anything is built on that property, even if the zoning changes, there would be signs that would be placed to inform the public that there would be another process to go through. And they would, the public would have the opportunity to have input into what is built there. Is that correct? Well, site plan approval as a process does not require the legal notifications that we do, for example, for rezonings. It is part of the public meeting. It would go out on the planning commission agenda, but it doesn't have the same, you know, posting of the property. So that is a distinction. It would be before this commission would certainly be part of the public agenda, but it wouldn't be advertised the same way as a reason. Is that something that a member of the public had asked to be informed on? I mean, I just, it seems like there are multiple people who feel pretty strongly that this would impact that area pretty dramatically. And I think it would. So the idea that they would have input or, you know, be able to further address it if the zoning was changed, that would be nice that they would have another opportunity. Right. Yes, we do have a list of like basically a distribution list for people who are interested in getting notifications of all of our agendas. So anybody who wants to be on that list, they would get the agenda via email for all of our boards and commission meeting. And then they'd have that advanced notice of when it was going to be at the planning commission. So they can send you an email and ask that. Yes. Yeah, for sure. And I think, let's see, I think I have another, I'm gonna, since we're having trouble with the, the public input, I'm actually gonna call this gentleman real quick on and see if I can just put him on speaker. So if you'll just bear with me for a moment. Okay. If you have anybody on staff that could speak to, maybe to the prior discussion that we've had as far as a number of units is planned by the developer at this point. This is Lee. I could speak to the gentleman's comment regarding the North Main master plan. And is that what you're interested in? Or would you rather hear from Rachel regarding zoning? Either with me, it's just fine. Thank you. Well, I guess, Rachel, do you want me to start? And you can follow up. Would that be helpful? Yeah, go ahead. Okay. So the North Main master plan, which was adopted in the early 2000s, actually does not cover this property because the plans area was only for those properties that were within the city limits at the time of the planning process. So, although it does not cover the plan, the, your case summary that you've received does review a relevant existing neighborhood plan, which is the walkable 29203 pedestrian master plan. And that plan covers the whole of the 29203 zip code. But there are no specific recommendations for land use on that plan. That plan really talks about how we make it safer for pedestrians. So it does, you'll see noted in the case summary, it recommends some sidewalk infill along Mason roads and Sinclair to Weston. And just generally recommends improving the streetscape for pedestrian use, but it does deal with the potential residential densities, that sort of thing. So with that, I'll turn it over to Rachel. Okay. The RG2 zoning district allows for roughly 16.4 units per acre when it comes to density. The rezoning itself is not project specific. So I can't speak to how many units the applicant plans to have on the parcel, but just overall the availability for the zoning district would be 16.4 units per acre. So, and Dr. Mandel to touch on something you had asked to, we do have a active Board of Zoning Appeals application on this property. So there would be postings for that variance request to notify the neighborhood of another public hearing opportunity as well. And when you guys are ready, I do have Mr. Starnes on the line and I'll put him in speaker if you guys are ready for more public comment. Sure, please go ahead. Okay. Mr. Starnes? Yes. Okay, I'm gonna turn up the volume and hopefully they'll be able to hear you. Okay, go ahead. Good evening. Good evening. My name is James Starnes. I am president of the North 21 Terrace Neighborhood Association, which is the neighborhood the property on Mason Road is located. And I'm calling on behalf of our neighbors who due to circumstances beyond our control and beyond the control of Mr. Lawrence, the architect we came, we were brought to the table fairly late in this process. We ended to see a sign about the zoning meeting. And from that point, we've gotten very consistent feedback from Mr. Lawrence, he's provided us with a wealth of information about the plan for the property. The neighbors have expressed some concerns about the number one, the property being annexed and the potential for the North 21 Terrace neighborhood to end up being annexed. Basically without their consent, that is the concern that they've had. They have not expressed a lot of concern about the housing development coming to that area, but they are gut shy based on our experience a couple of years ago when the plan was to develop the same property. And they were given information that they just, again, we had to ask for a seat at the table that time. And the neighbors were concerned because of being told that the property would be developed into housing that would attract quote, USD professors that would be the likelihood of a Denny's, a Walmart and other businesses coming to the area. And since there are a number of businesses that are closed in the area, of course the neighbors were somewhat suspect and just did not get wrapped around supporting that project wholeheartedly. This time the concern, excuse me, is ensuring that whatever housing comes to this area, however it is developed, that is not developed in such a way that the neighborhood would be in decline. According to the reviews for some of the projects that this company operates in other parts of the state, there are complaints of drug sales in the parking lot. The property instantly declining or turning into a quote, get to left, it was there. We've not seen the property so we can of course substantiate that, but at least two properties owned by the company, those are concerns. And of course the neighbors asked me to express their concern about the potential for such a problem at this property and what complaints at the property about management not being able to be located, issues with trash, issues with pests, and of course there were also some positive reviews. But the main point the neighborhood has asked me to express is their concern about the developer being, and I'm sure that this is not something that the zoning council can do. I plan a committee can do, but that we have them not make promises and then we end up with the neighborhood being annexed, property being developed into a complex that's gonna be in decline very quickly. And then also the issue of traffic, making sure that the traffic is resolved and making sure that there are no flood issues, right? Next to that property on North Main Street, you'll remember during the famous flood is where the car was down in the street which was covered on national news. So those are their concerns. We appreciate Mr. Lawrence and the support he's been able to provide for us, but I've been asked to share those concerns with the committee and I thank you so much for the opportunity. Thank you. Thanks. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have. Did you all have any questions, Mr. Starnes? I think we're good, Lucinda. Okay, Mr. Starnes, if you could continue to listen through your streaming, do you have this stuff on YouTube? Been able to stay on YouTube. It tells me that there's an application error and then it disconnects me, but I will try again. Okay, call us back if you need to. Thank you very much. All right. And I also have another email that has come through in the last couple of minutes. This is from Mr. Murray, Harold Murray again from the Greenview community. He says, Mason Road is a very busy street since it is the connector between North Main Street and Fairfield Road. The entry and exit location to this property will create a traffic nightmare based on the limitations of this property. An entry from North Main Street would create congestion at the intersection of North Main Street and Mason Road. There is a sizable pond on the Northwest part of the property and there is a water drainage issue as well. During the October 2015 flood, that portion of North Main Street experienced a washout. An entrance and exit on Mason Road would be dangerous because that portion of the property is near the crest of a hill. This property would probably need to have an entry and exit that leads into the adjacent North 21 Terrace neighborhood. There are street size limitations since the most probable street to use in that neighborhood would be Denton Street. Denton Street is a narrow street that is not a thoroughfare. I'm familiar with the limitation of the street because I have relatives who live on the street near the development property. And that concludes Mr. Murray's email. I guess I'll ask if there's any new correspondence or any other callers on the line. I do not see any new callers on the line. Any other follow-up questions from Planning Commission? Jamie, I have a question for staff. If a second plan was submitted, would that include a traffic study? Would that be part of the site plan? Often it is. I don't know if Jonathan has any more info about what the thresholds are for that, but generally when there's a larger residential development, the city traffic engineer often asks for a traffic study. Yes, I'm here and they have, I believe they have made application for the next Planning Commission meeting. And I believe that a traffic impact study has been submitted. Okay, thank you. Any other follow-up questions from the Planning Commission? I have a quick question for staff. Has this property come up before us before a couple of years ago? I think it did. I think there was, I might have to defer to somebody else, but I think there was, this is a portion of a bigger proposal. Yes, it was more land that came in the past for annexation and it was gonna be annexed and then zoned as a planned unit development. I believe it went before you all and then it did not make it through council. It was withdrawn before any council votes due to some changes. Okay. I was just trying to get a clarification. Thank you. Of course. Any more questions? Very none, I'll accept a motion. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve the recommendation to assign land use classification of urban edge multi-family and assign zoning of general residential district, RG2 for appending annexation at 1307 Mason Road. Got a motion, can I get a second? Mike wouldn't work and I'll second it. All right, got a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Opposed? Opposed. I'm opposed. I'm opposed. Okay, we do a count by name for that one. Yeah, we might need a count on this one. Yeah, we do a roll call. Mr. Cohn? Yes. Ms. Davis? No. Mr. Hart? Yes. Ms. Hartz? No. Ms. James? Yes. Dr. Mendel? No. Mr. Tupper? Yes. Mr. Frost? Yes. Motion passes. The next case, this is a site plan review. This is a request for site plan approval for the construction of a 35 lot cluster housing development. This is the Wheeler Hill phase two, that includes the north and south side of the 400 block of Cal Way alley, 417 through 425 Henderson Street, 1603 through 1615 Rice Street, two vacant lots on the south side of the 1600 block of Rice Street, 312 through 328 Pickin Street, a vacant lot within the 1600 block of Potava Street, and a portion of Phelps Street. The properties are zoned RG2. This is the, these are the properties in question. Here's the zoning. And then we've got several pages of site plan. This is the Phelps Street proposal and the gradient drainage. And these are some examples of the proposed new construction. Jonathan, did you wanna add anything at this point? No, I think you covered it. I would just add that this is for a, it is a 35 lot single family cluster housing development, which allows the lot sizes to vary a little bit between what would be allowed outright for the zoning. So the lots range from about 3,500 square feet to 4,700 square feet. And it also includes the proposed extension of Phelps Street. Our office has received several calls and letters of opposition. Several of them are included in your packet. There was one letter emailed to you today, which is from the Wheeler Hill Neighborhood Association. And we just wanna make sure that we have that on the record. It is, let's see here. It is the letter that is dated January 29th. Dated January 29th, addressed to me from the Wheeler Hill Neighborhood Association, two page letter, and it has an exhibit with it as well. We just wanna make sure that that's part of the record. And I believe the applicant is present at this time and can explain their case. I would say, let's go ahead and hear from the applicant and then we can follow up with any planning commission questions. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, members. I appreciate your time to see. We were before you several months back. We resumed the property from a PUD that was an older generation PUD and it was a single use PUD. And based on the Supreme Court's ruling, we could not modify that PUD whatsoever. So we went back to the drawing board, resumed RG2 anticipation of moving to a cluster housing to simulate lot sizes similar to the older section of Wheeler Hill and very similar to what was proposed in the original PUD. We've had several pre-COVID, we had some meetings with the stakeholders. Since COVID, we've had several Zoom meetings and phone calls with the neighborhood. We're trying to develop this commiserate to the housing type and size and so forth of the existing neighborhood. We've actually reduced the number of lots from the original PUD to make the lower area where the bond is, work better and have a park so forth. We tried to work with the, and are still trying to work with the existing church in the neighborhood as well as some of the neighbors. We've had a couple of different versions of the plan. The city staff, the Phelps should connect. There's certainly logic to that. And that's what we originally were looking at, some other options on the option that seem to make the most sense all the way around. I know there's some concerns with the neighbors relative to additional traffic in the neighborhood because Phelps Street connects, but it's kind of laid out on the grid. It seems to make sense that that was probably the way it was originally designed in Columbia. It was kind of designed on a grid system, but the difference to your time, I'm glad to answer any questions. Hey, this is, I'm sorry. David, this is Chairman Frost. Thanks for being here. Can you tell me if originally Phelps was platted to run all the way through? In the original PUD, it was not. There's been a reconfiguration of some lots along Pickin Street that were originally fronting on Pickin Street. There was an air parcel in there that they've gotten clean tidal too, so that changed that configuration. And we thought it was much safer rather than have five or six lots front on Pickin Street and have to back in or pull in and out to face those into the neighborhood. So that's the major change from the PUD, but the PUD did not connect on Pickin Street. Here again, I wasn't involved when that was passed 15 years ago. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I have a question, which is I heard you mention that you were trying to work with the church and there were some earlier kinds of thoughts about the idea of that being a historically black neighborhood and that church is kind of the last vestige of that and was USC going to make any sort of efforts to be supportive of the church and helpful of the church. And so I'm wondering what the status of that is right now. Yeah, so I can only speak from our perspective on that. We purchased the property in January of last year. We worked through the process. We had early meetings with the church and others. We understand the church would love more space and we're certainly willing to accommodate as best we can knowing that we certainly have a business model here with obligations to others to perform on it. But where we are currently from my understanding is I think that the university is working on it. I had a call earlier this week with pastor and a member of the neighborhood and agreed because we took about a six month break to see what might could happen with the church property relative to them raising some funds to maybe expand their site. We reached a kind of an agreement that we would potentially be able if we were to pass tonight and go ahead and clap those lots or we would keep the lots that were adjacent to the church off the market for the time being while they were still trying to work on things but to understand that clearly couldn't hold them forever but we're willing to work on that for another three or four months. We have local builders, three of them, the quality builders that are very interested in getting started in here and have a lot of interest. So that's the extent. I'm not sure where the talks are with the university beyond that because I haven't been involved. So your understanding is that your current offering to the church is that you will basically keep those lots off the market and there's no agreed upon time. I mean, I guess I'm just, it sounds pretty vague. I guess I'm wondering what the actual, if there's any actual agreement. Well, Dr. Randall, we don't have a written agreement. Everything that I've done with them and I've lived up to my part of it was all verbal. I didn't move on the property for seven months while I was paying interest and taxes, et cetera, in deference to the church to see what could be done with the university and foundation and others to accommodate their request. And nothing's materialized yet, but we're certainly willing. We kind of thought about another 90 days or so to see what might happen. Are you offering it to them? Those lots at a particular price or at a discount, I mean, I'm just kind of curious. Like I said, it doesn't, I'm just trying to get a sense of what the agreement is because there's a lot of history between that church and that neighborhood and the university and the development. Yeah, I'm certainly aware of that. And we've, we bought the property from the foundation, foundation owned it for 18, 19, 20 years. And shortly after we bought it, folks started wanting to grow up their sleeves and try to get a work on that. We haven't discussed a final price with the church because there hasn't been any movement relative to funding. We're certainly willing to talk on that, but here again, we have a viable project and we like to move forward and we can be accommodating as long as we can, but at some point we have to move forward. I guess I'd be interested if there's anybody from the church here to speak tonight, but I know there are other people as well. So I'll let it be for now. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Here are none. I think we can move to public comment. I think I need to make another couple of calls for folks that are having trouble getting through. So just bear with me for a moment. In the meanwhile, I do have a caller that has raised their hand to speak. I can pass that through. Okay, that'd be great. Thank you. This is Dick Harpooley and I am not only state senator that represents this area. I've lived in this neighborhood for 50 years and watched Wheeler Hill demolished by the University of South Carolina over a period of 10 years by Dengue Act. Today, he would not fix houses up. African-American families lived in hobbles without water, without electricity. There's a guy named Hal Brunton ran them out and destroyed that neighborhood. The church is the last vestige. I mean, I knew Fannie Phelps Adams, that street's named after. I knew many of the African-American members of the community down there and we worked together as a neighborhood. I'm concerned about what's going on from two aspects. One, and I think Jim Daniels will talk to you in a moment the president of the Neighborhood Association. We agree to the change from a pud to the new zoning. And when we agreed to do that, Self Street was gonna remain closed as it had been in the pud. And now the developer is seeking, he seems to rely on the city to open it and make it another thoroughfare through Wheeler Hill. The neighborhoods opposed to that, I'm opposed to that. And having lived here, as I say, for almost a half a century, I understand what's gonna happen when that street opens. Now if the city staff is opposed to that, we should have an opportunity to meet with them before we go forward. And if he's indicated he's got another 90 days before he's gonna give the church a chance to work something out, there'd be no problem in delaying this until at least the next meeting so we can get with the city staff to see what we can do about dealing with this cul-de-sac and thoroughfare on Self Street. The other thing I'd say is this, the university should step up and buy those lots. God knows they committed a trustee after a trustee on Wheeler Hill back in the early 70s. So I'd ask you to carry this over and maybe the applicant won't mind if we do it for at least 30 days to see what progress we can make with the city staff on dealing with this Self Street closure. I'll be happy to answer any questions if there are any. Thank you. Any questions from staff for Mr. Harputlin? From the commission, I'm sorry, any questions from the commission to Mr. Harputlin? I mean, it sounds like the neighborhood supported it under a particular set of circumstances and those circumstances have changed and they do not support it anymore. And I would echo the idea that this neighborhood has, it is historically, there have been terrible things that have happened here and this church is the last piece of what happened. And one of the earlier comments was about what could be done to help them and the idea that there's money to be made and people waiting to make money and this church just needs to get it together. I do not appreciate that. I don't, I think it's unfortunate that developer has purchased property with a history of atrocities, but that is what has happened. That is what has happened on this property and in this area. And to pretend that's not true is that's the history. It's real. Could I mention one other thing? I was not aware of what's going on until today when I was talking to the folks on Wheeler Hill, the officers of the organization on Wheeler Hill, I'll be happy to go to the university and see if we can't get some money found either through appropriations or existing appropriations to buy these lots for the church. I feel, again, there's gonna give 90 days, give us 60 days to see if we can't work out stuff with the city and see if I can't get that money to buy these lots. I don't know what the applicant would object to that, would he? Yeah, Mr. Harpool, and I appreciate your efforts there and would certainly applaud them. I wanna be clear, I wasn't involved in any of the atrocities that went on here. We're trying to be good stewards of the land, moving forward with a few of the existing residents. I'm getting pressure from my lender and others. Like I said, we've taken seven months to work through this. I'm willing to hold the lots that are adjacent to the church off the market and give some time, but I need to move forward with the project if it's possible. Like I said, I've been very accommodating for a while, trying to please everybody. I'm sorry, I'm not aware of that, but there's certainly been efforts by the Wheeler Hill Group and the association working with the university and residents with direct ties both to the president's office and the foundation for months. So I certainly would appreciate any heavy lifting you can do. Well, you would hold off on selling those adjacent lots for 90 days? Yes, but if everybody was selling cotton, I could move forward with the other option. Well, would you agree to hold off for 30 days so we can see if we can work something out of the city on the cul-de-sac? I mean, that's an unfair question. I've got forces that are asking me to move forward. I've got staff and so forth that recommended that the road connect. And now I'm out here kind of hang dangling by myself and I don't think that's appropriate. Well, you would agree that the plan you have now is not what you sold us two years ago, a year and a half ago. Yeah, the city- You faded and switched, maybe not intentionally, but what we have now, you're asking them to approve, is not what you showed us. I went to those meetings and this doesn't, this is not what we bought. I wasn't- Correct. The city staff is the one who's required to connect. We submitted a plan that didn't connect. So if the staff doesn't need to connect they need to voice that while we're on call. I mean, I understand that, but given 30 days, maybe we'll work that out with the city. If not, then it is what it is. You also pick up an extra lot. This is the zoning for 34 lots. This is for 35 lots. Yeah, Mr. Arbuen, this is down to 42 under the original PUD. I understand that, but what was approved that we went along with was 34 lots. This was 35. And you pick that extra lot up by not having to do that cul-de-sac. So this is just a money-making enterprise to you. These folks, this is their homes. They'd like you to live up to what you promised and promise 34 lots, not 35, in a cul-de-sac. Give us 30 days to see we can work it out. Would you agree to that? No, I'm not accustomed. I started on the Rich's County Planning Commission for eight years. I'm not accustomed to having dialogue with somebody who's called in on the project. Okay, well, perhaps, and I'm not threatening anything, but perhaps we need to deal with this in the courts because I don't think this is what was approved or the Planning Commission could continue it for 30 days and give us a chance to work this out. And I don't appreciate your unwillingness to do that. That's all I get. William, you're claiming, and I don't want to get into debate here publicly on a phone call, but for seven months- No, this isn't the place to debate it. I said, I don't. Now, you're the first phone call in, and now if I don't hold up for another 30 days on the bad guy? That's not fair. That's not fair. Well, what's not fair is, if you knew the history of the land you bought, is what's happened down there. You're unwilling to accommodate the church. You're unwilling to live up to the deal that was 34 lots, and Phelps wouldn't go through. And when the city staff told you that, I think you needed to come and sit down with Mr. Daniel and others and try to work through that with the city, which is not what you did. I mean, I'm just telling you- Mr. Arpulian, I had a Zoom call with the neighborhood association last week after we submitted, and we got comments back. After you submitted this to the planning commission, not before? Well, Mr. Arpulian, the way it's typically worked in my career is we submit it, we get comments back from the municipality, and once it's kind of in a form that the public could engage on, there's no sense in reviewing the first draft. It's the third drafts, the one that needs to be debated. In debating it. Excuse me, can the city staff just walk us through a little bit about the process of the road connection and see if we can make any headway that way? Sure. This is Jonathan Chambers. The original plan that was presented to us had a, I believe it had, and I'm trying to pull it up now, I'm not sure we'll be able to get it shared, but the original plan had Phelps Street as a gated access. There was a gate, and you cannot gate a public street. No. That wasn't, it was, I believe it was a cul-de-sac, a hammerhead cul-de-sac. But that would be, and that would be the plan I believe that they're referencing is the plan that was submitted with the rezoning request from PUD to RG2, which I believe is referenced in a lot of the letters back in 2020. And that plan was different than what was submitted to us for the original planning commission submittal. Mr. Chairman, if I might, we submitted a plan with a hammerhead and there was a concern for life safety that the Lumbron was too long for a fire truck. So like we've done in other neighborhoods, we propose an emergency access, quote unquote, knock-down gate, one that goes off with the siren, et cetera, to gain access from the city. The city has a requirement that you cannot gate, quote unquote, a public road. So we offered to make the road private for the new section, and that wasn't viable. So the next iteration was to connect the road. It was, from my memory, it was a life safety issue where a lot of times you have a run that's longer and they would like fire trucks to be able to come in. So we proposed a knock-down limited gate only for emergency use, which would be beneficial to everyone, but that's not allowed under the current city codes. It's allowed in the county, but it's not allowed in the city. Thank you. So, and this is Rachel. I just want to comment. I know the site, there was a conceptual plan that was included in the rezoning application that came before you all last year. A rezoning is not conditioned on anything and it is not project-specific. So that plan was not binding through the rezoning. I just want to make sure that's clear as well. Jamie, thank you. Ford, did you have a question? Yeah, it was mentioned that the gate, the emergency access gate was not allowed through city code. Is that something that could be addressed through the board of zoning appeals, potentially? Or is that just... Yeah, that's outside of zoning scope. Okay. Would the applicant mind deferring the next month to come to some kind of meeting of the minds? You know, if it's the wish or the commission, I'm glad for another 30 days. It just can't, I mean, I don't know where that's coming. I mean, somebody will have to let me understand if we agree to 30 days. Does that mean I'm on March's planning commission or have I already missed that? And would I be on April's planning commission? I would think March, because that would still give you 30 days, you know, to try to get something figured out. Yeah, I mean, I'm going to do that. I'm not sure what we're going to figure out that we haven't in the last seven months, but if we think 30 days gets us there, I would do that, but I can't go beyond that. Lucinda, can you confirm if it was deferred that it would be on March's agenda and not April? Yeah, let me take a look at the calendar. And if we could then move on to any additional public comment, folks. We technically have missed the deadline. That was on January 27th. But usually if they're deferred at the meeting, they get to go to the following meeting. Well, then I guess, yeah, it would just be a matter of, you know, you know, however long it takes to work out whatever so that we can get a revised site plan reviewed by staff. If that's the result of this, you know, largely site plans, again, I have to do with the city agencies review, you know, technical review and making recommendations. So I mean, we would just, I mean, do everything we can, but we'd have to, Jonathan and folks would have to figure out if that can be turned around in time. It is, it's possible that we could get it back to the March 1st meetings. It would be tight, but it's possible. Okay, that's good. Depending on how fast the meetings take place and that kind of. If it's possible, I would support that. I think it's, I don't, I really do hear the developer to the degree that it's to ask them to put it off for too long is really unfair. So if we ask them to put it off for a month, I don't think that's great for anybody. It means that the neighborhood has to hustle, the city has to hustle and the developer has to put off making money for longer, but it does seem like that's one possible way that there could be forward progress because right now there is, I mean, nobody happy. So, and if there's an opportunity, again, I come back to the church, if there's a possibility that the church can be supported in being allowed to have additional properties and is not, pardon my French, screwed under this circumstance, I would be very happy with that. So if there's a possibility that people could work really hard and it could get done, we could put it off for a month, I would very much support that. And I know that's not optimal for anybody, but I would support it. Okay, Dick, is that, I mean, is that acceptable to you as well? Speaking on behalf of, I guess, the other communities and just being in that community. Also, sorry to interrupt. I've got Jim Daniel on the line. If I could just for a moment, he would like to say a couple of words as well. Okay, Jim, are you there? Yeah. Okay, go ahead. And can you mute your computer for a minute? Yeah, but I would mention that the Phelps Street with the position I wanted to cover, there are a couple of things. The revised Phelps Street drawing is dated December 30th, 2020. The neighborhood was not provided, a copy of that by Mr. Turtle, that was provided to us by Mr. Chambers when he sent me notification that this was on the planning commission agenda for February. So what happened between July of 2020 and the end of December, as far as Phelps Street was unrelated to the church issue, that's a separate issue. Secondly, I think you have in your packet 14 objections from members, four groups who live on Phelps Street to the continuation. But I think our argument, again, Mr. Harputlin presented was that we thought what was gonna happen was the site plan that was presented was the show and zoning application in 2020 and did not get the new site plan until two weeks ago. And that came from the city, not from the developer. Other than that, I've got a bunch of other questions. I submitted to the developer and the staff a number of questions with an addendum and as for a written response, we haven't gotten any response to that. So I would think right off the bat, this meeting needs to be postponed until those issues are dealt with. But I think that's the university situation really is between them and the church. But I think some neighbors have gotten involved to try to push this issue further up the total poll. It's been in the president's office. James Smith is the contact and we've been trying to work with him and the pastor, Kimberly, on trying to get some funding. If I got the questions, please let me know. Thank you. Senator, am I being heard? Yep. I think everybody can hear you, Mr. Daniel. Yep, yep, we heard you. All right. Thanks, Jim. Okay. Outline and pretty substantial detail in the two letters are concerned. And we would hope that we could work with Mr. Total. He's a good developer. I think he's got a good game plan. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Lucinda, I just have a question for staff. Is what's the protocol for answering questions, you know, from a private individual when they come in like that? I mean, there's no, I guess, I think it was a little confusing the questions, whether they were to be answered by the applicant or the planning commission. I mean, there was a number of questions that I guess dealt with different issues. So it's, I mean, I guess we could look at those, but generally it would be something that, you know, would be if there was concerns between the applicant and the neighborhood, then, you know, obviously it's ideal if those can be worked out, but generally a site plan review is just based on the, you know, the technical review comments from city staff. I mean, that's generally what site plan is. And like Rachel pointed out, the site plan, you know, that was submitted before was not, you know, there was no obligation as part of the rezoning process to, I mean, staff always tries to make that point that when a rezoning is done, that that is just simply what it is as a rezoning and certainly, you know, plans suggestions are made at a certain time, but changes to plans also happen. So really staff is just looking at the site plan in terms of whether it meets the city's, you know, regulations in terms of, you know, access and safety and lot size and that sort of thing. And that's what the recommendation is based on. Understood, thank you. I don't know if the applicants have seen these questions or not. I don't know, that's what I was asking about, it's the process of- Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I have dialogue with Daniel fairly constantly. I had a Zoom meeting with 18 or 19 of the Wheelerville residents the other night. So, you know, I'm not sure what else we can do, but we'll certainly sit down and try to address concerns that are relevant to the process that we're involved in. We can certainly address those. Other things are certainly well beyond my control. I do, if we're gonna defer and we're gonna try to meet with the neighborhood, I need some clarity as to where staff would be if there's a hammerhead turnaround there that doesn't connect Phelps to Picking Street. Is that a problem or do they want it to connect? Sure, is that a question staff can make the call on while we're in this planning commission or is that for further discussion? That would be for further discussion because there's other departments that would be involved in that. Understood. Do we feel that we can have that discussion and meet the March agenda for planning commission? Yes. Are there any other callers on the line, Lucinda, or any other emails? Let me check on the email, I don't think so. I don't see any other emails at this point. I don't know if Andrew has any successful callers or not. I do not have any additional callers. Thank you. Are there any further questions from the planning commission to staff or the applicant? Actually, sorry, can we just get, I know it's after the fact, but can we get David to, could you just state your name for the record so I think we missed that at the beginning? Just as the applicant, please. David Tuttle. Thank you. Any further questions from planning commission? Here are nine, I'll accept a motion. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to defer site plan review 2021-001 for the construction of a 35 lot plus our housing development ruler here, Hill phase two. Got a motion to defer. Is there a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is deferred. Thank y'all for your time. Thank you, David. Thank you, you guys. I guess if we're moving on to other business, I just wanted to take a moment to introduce you guys to your new planning commission member. Raquel Thomas is here sitting in and we'll be sitting on the commission in March. And Raquel, we don't always have this many technical difficulties. So thank you for bearing with us. Are you here? Yes, I'm here. Okay. Sorry with my screen sharing, I can't see everybody. Welcome. Thank you so much. It's good to be here. Heard a earful tonight, but all good. Because I'm on board, Raquel. We look forward to working with you. Yes, me too. Thank you so much for having me. Excited to be here to help. Thanks, Raquel. Thank you. Look forward to meeting you. You as well. Thank you. All right. Well, if there's no further business, I'll take a motion that we adjourn. Mr. Chairman. I'll make a motion that we adjourn. Second. I got a second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor. Signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is adjourned. Or the...