 Welcome to the August 14, 2018 meeting of the City of Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals. I'm Chuck Sallie and I serve as Chair of the Board and this time I'd like to introduce the other members of the Board. To my far left, Reggie McKnight, and then right next to Reggie is Gene Deakins, and to my right, immediate right, Marcellus Premis, and then to going in that direction, Jenna Stevens and George Schaefer. I'd also like to introduce the staff who will be assisting with the Board. Rachel Bailey, the Zoning Administrator, and Hope Hasty is the Deputy Zoning Administrator. Also assisting today is Andrea Wolfe, the land use board coordinator. The Board is charged with hearing applications for special exceptions, variances, and administrative appeals. All testimony is recorded. Anyone wishing to speak will need to be sworn in and come to the podium to speak. No testimony can be taken from the floor. When you come to the podium, state your name and please speak clearly into the microphone because this meeting is being recorded. Applicants with cases before the Board are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the Board or staff regarding the case. Any member of the public may address the Board in intervals of three minutes or five minutes if a spokesperson is established for this body or group. So three minutes per person, five minutes if there's an allocated or established spokesman. The applicant then has five minutes for rebuttal and the Board reserves the right to amend these limits on a case-by-case basis. Those of you who plan to speak must be sworn. If you are here as an applicant or here to speak on any case, please stand at this time and raise your right hand. Do you affirm or attest that the testimony that you will give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? At this time, I'd like to turn the meeting over to Ms. Bailey. Good morning. So there has been one change to the agenda. Item number five, Case 2018-0061 for 1213 Heights Street, a special exception to establish a religious organization that has been withdrawn by the applicant. So again, item number five will not be heard today. The Board of Zoning Appeals uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion in vote. If a member of the Board or the general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, that item is removed and considered during the meeting on the regular agenda. So we will run through the consent agenda. First we have the approval of the July 10th, 2018 minutes. Item number two, Case 2018-0051, that's for 2301 Divine Street, a special exception to permit miscellaneous personal services. Item number three, 2018-0054 for 414 Otte Road. This is a variance to the side yard setback requirement to construct an addition for a single family residence. Item number four, Case 2018-00555, 517 South Wachemaw Avenue. This is a variance to the secondary front yard setback to construct an addition for a single family residence. And item number six, Case 2018-0066, 214 Wayne Street, a variance to Off Street Parking for a mixed use building. If anyone wishes to have any of the cases removed, please let us know now. Does anyone want one of these cases removed from the consent agenda on the board? I see no one. I make a motion that we approve the consent agenda subject to all comments of staff. Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. That motion carries. First item on the regular agenda is case number seven, 2018-0052 for 631 Whaley Street. This is a special exception to permit a liquor store. If the applicant is here, they can come forward. He's actually representing him. He's out of the country on a medical issue. My name is Sachin Ibandara. And he's combining the two buildings. And wanting to put a liquor store in there. And we have had, there's a current store that's already there, a gas station. And it has had a beer and wine license for almost 20 years. So basically asking permission if we can go ahead and move forward with the liquor store. Okay, do you have the information in front of you for the actual criteria for this that was filled out in the application? I was just given this form. Just go through each question. Would you go through that for us on the application so we can establish the criteria? Okay. I am so sorry. I was just given this information and that's why it says describing what way is the proposed special exception will not be a substantial adverse impact on vehicular traffic or pedestrian safety. There is parking on the site and they have three entries towards the parking. And describing what ways the proposed special exception will not have a substantial adverse impact on adjoining properties in terms of environment factors such as noise, light, vibration, et cetera. And he is a business owner and it's not going to be any problem to neighbors and he will keep it clean. And they have the C-store in there currently and it is a very clean area. Describing what ways to propose special exception will not have substantial adverse impact on the aesthetic character of the area. He is not changing anything regarding the buildings. He's not changing just adjusting the building and describe the ways in which the proposed special exception will not have an adverse impact on public safety or create nuisance conditions detrimental to public interest or conditions likely to result in increased law enforcement. He says he has security cameras and the owners operating so there shouldn't be any problems. Explain how the establishment of the proposed special exception does not create a concentration of proliferation or the same or similar of special exception and maybe detrimental to the development area. And there is no liquor store within one mile on Assembly Street. Explain how the proposed special exception is consistent with the character and intent of the underlying district as indication in the zoning district description. As I said before, there's already a C-store right now and he's just adding on to the other side of the C-store and describe how the proposed special exception is appropriate for this location and compatible with the permitted uses adjacent to. He's not the resident. He's not in resident. Some other restaurant and bar across the street and there are so many businesses around and explain in what ways the proposed special exception will not adversely affect the public interest. He's just providing a business for the community. You'll make sure that it is safe and it has a lot of security. And so he's had a business since 2004 here and there haven't been any problems. Is this a convenience store currently part of the Good Neighbor program? You know, Rachel? The convenience store, I believe, came into place before the Good Neighbor plan was created. If they do an expansion, which I think their plan is to move on to the neighboring lot and kind of ship the convenience store over there, they would have to come before the board for that expansion separately and the Good Neighbor plan would be a part of that. So my understanding then is this is not inside the store but it's actual expansion of the existing store? Yes. Currently is 631 where the Seastore is and 621 has been bought to make the expansion. For the liquor stores for this specific parcel, their future plans are to relocate the actual convenience store. Is that going to be part of this building or separate from this building? It will be kind of on the same lot. It doesn't really have to, it doesn't matter. We can have a separate door if needed or it can have a combining door as well. But I mean, there would be a separation because one would be just a convenience store. Gotcha. So we don't have a site plan or any kind of plan? No, because this specific request isn't for the convenience. They'll have to come back for the actual convenience. Understood. Okay, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak for and against this proposal? If you are, please step forward to this podium. Yes, ma'am. I'd like to have the five minutes. So duly noted. Thank you. My name is Bi Henley. I live in the Olympia community at 104 Alabama Street. I'm speaking for the Olympia Residence Council. We're a diverse group of folks, including families with children, transients, working individuals, retired and university students. A liquor store would be in direct conflict of the direction set forth by our historic neighborhood capital city mill district plan. In terms of the vehicles, cars and pedestrian safety, there will be additional pedestrian vehicular traffic and an already busy intersection at Whaley and Wayne. We have a burgeoning university population. These kids are often distracted by their cell phones while walking and driving. They also tend to imbibe in excess. Our first responders have seen significant increase in calls during the academic year. Additionally, a lot of our transient residents have alcohol addiction issues and would be traveling to the store under the influence. These high risk behaviors will result most likely in increased rates of pedestrian and vehicular accidents. In terms of public safety and nuisance conditions, university students comprise a large majority of our neighborhood residents during the academic school year. This population is known to purchase alcohol using fake identification and binge drink. Students impaired, the students drive under the influence, which results in increased rates of pedestrian and vehicular accidents. While walking under the influence, they disrupt the neighborhood with ridden, obnoxious behaviors including littering, yelling, fighting, playing loud obscene music, passing out on the streets or on front porches and in yards, throwing up and urinating in public. Further, they put themselves at risk by stumbling into the heavily traveled streets of Whaley and Olympia Avenue. In addition to our student residents, we have a year-round transient population. As I said earlier, many of them suffer alcohol addiction and habitually loiter convenient stores that sell alcohol. Customers are panhandled and at times are fearful of the aggressive nature of the ask. Although they're asked to move along, they often will move on to our local parks of which we have two, one directly behind the store in question. In terms of concentration, we have six, I believe it's six, liquor outlets within a two-mile area. Greens on Assembly Street is only 0.6 miles away. We feel our neighborhood is adequately served as it relates to the sale of retail liquor. In terms of compatibility, a liquor store in our neighborhood is just not compatible. The Shiv Mart is within, at the doorstep of four churches, two public parks with playgrounds and various residential homes. After an aesthetics, the Capital City Mill District Plan outlines land use for 631 Whaley as Urban Core Neighborhood Activity Center. They also, our buildings are to be built in scale with architectural design in the mill vernacular. The Shiv Market buildings are cookie cutter gas stations. We have not seen plans for this addition and are concerned about the orientation and spacing of the store and that it may be in direct conflict with state law requiring liquor businesses to be at least 300 feet from churches or playgrounds. There are two churches within a stone's, three churches within a stone's throw. Environmental factors will have more light, more noise, more traffic. Alcohol containers and black plastic bags are already a blight upon our community and already litter our neighborhood parks, waterways and streets. The addition of a liquor store will only intensify this problem and because we're in multiple jurisdictions, nobody's walking around and cleaning this up. The people who live there have to pick it up. We would ask that the public interest be upheld to provide another liquor store where there are already six liquor outlets in a heavily populated area by students would suggest our community and the city of Columbia would support their high-risk behaviors. We appreciate your consideration of our concerns. Thank you, ma'am. Good morning. My name is Robert Gild. I live at 314 Palm All Street in the Granby Mill Village neighborhood. I'm the president of the Neighborhood Association and you have my letter of August 6, which I'd like to affirm. In addition, I'd like to support the observations that Ms. Handley just made on behalf of the Olympia Residence Coalition. I endorse each of the points that she made. I'd just like to give you a little background if I might that might put this in proper context. If you look at your zoning map, you'll see that the Granby Architectural Conservation District immediately abuts to the rear, the site of the existing Shivmark, the subject property. That's really Pacific Memorial Park is what it is, a city park, also part of our conservation district. Important historical features in the park, memorial to World War I veterans. The two residential properties that immediately adjoin the subject property are Zone M1, but have been traditionally residential structures as far as I know they're rental properties today. Why they aren't included in the Granby District, I'm not really certain. They aren't original mill buildings, but I understand they date to the 1930s. They may well be contributing properties, but for the fact that there's a commercial property next to them to the left. In any event, what it seems to me is that the owners of this property are improperly segmenting their land use alterations that they propose for their property. We understand they have acquired the two residential bungalows to the left of the gas station that they intend to demolish those properties and have a site plan in mind that involves the liquor store proposal, but also some other configuration. The owners have had no contact with any of the three neighborhood associations in the area, so we really have no knowledge of what their long-term plan is, but as the staff indicates, they appear to have one in mind that involves expansion of the footprint. We have been intimately involved in attempting to preserve the historic character and the residential character of our larger capital city mill district, the Granby, Whaley, Olympia neighborhoods. The city and the county have had support for a long-term plan that has been alluded to by Ms. Handley. We believe that this expansion of the property and transformation of it into a liquor store is incompatible with our long-term interest as a community. To the right on your map there is 701 Whaley, a very prized adaptive reuse of a mill property that is well known in the community. Directly across the street to the bottom of your image there is the restored Olympia and Granby mills and the expansion 612 Whaley Street. The community commons or park is across the street that is a prized part of our community. Southside Baptist Street is catech corner directly across Whaley Street from the property and as I mentioned Pacific Park is to the rear. I'm informed that the owners of the Olympia, Granby mills, which have three commercial properties on the ground floor that the neighborhood advocated for, a pizza parlor, a taco, a store and a one vacant unit, but they consciously rejected the idea of having a liquor store in their property precisely for the reasons we're concerned and that is that it become an attractive nuisance for their student population largely underage encouraging them to illegally consume alcohol. You can only imagine what the thousands of residents in the Olympia, Granby and Whaley properties across the street are going to confront if they're dashing across moving lanes of traffic on Whaley Street that move quite quickly at that point to to partake of alcohol at the proposed liquor store proposed for the SHIB mark. We think that directly contravenes the consideration of adverse impacts to vehicular and pedestrian traffic among other things. And I want to endorse the general observations made by Ms. Henley about the generally negative conflicts with the public interest and the character of the surrounding community and we urge you to reject this special exception request and again are always available to communicate with the owners of the property. We work well with developers in our neighborhood and want to cooperate and encourage them to communicate with us about their long term plans for the property. Could you please restate what is the structure immediately across Whaley Street from 701 Whaley? What does that again? So Ms. Ninkins, directly across the street is the, we'll call it the Mill Village Commons. It's the property of the PMC development, the Olympia, Granby apartments, but they maintain it as a publicly accessible park. So it's green space basically directly across the street if that's what you're looking at. I'm actually asking about what's directly across from 701 Whaley. What is? That's the Southside Baptist Church. That's an active Baptist congregation. I'm not sure what the, as Ms. Henley mentioned, it's certainly very close to 300 feet line of sight, but I know there's an odd measurement that the ABC folks use, so I'm not confident that what it's actual distance is walking, but that's a church active congregation. I guess this is a question for staff, but that's what I was triggering in my mind. I know I've been involved with some of these cases before, and is it there a minimum separation between church? We have that for drinking establishments in our code, but for liquor stores, we don't have that. That's something that would come under state law, so that would come up if they, that may be a concern if they go to get licensing through DOR, but that would be handled by the state. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. My name is Larry Gamble. I live at 103 Parker Street, which is just around the corner from the Baptist Church. I am a member of the Baptist Church, an active member, and we are strictly opposed to a liquor store bid in our neighborhood. We would like for you to reject this exception for this liquor store. We do not need a liquor store. It's stated we have so many young people living in the meals over there in our apartments, and as you all know, liquor does not breed good habits. So we just ask that you oppose this exception to the zoning. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Good morning. My name is Melissa Liggan. I live at 412 Florida Street in the Olympia neighborhood, and I would just like to go on record as saying I don't think we need this liquor store. In our neighborhood, we've got plenty in the vicinity. Now also, it's already been pointed out the proximity to the parks and to the church across the way. I feel like it will just add unnecessary traffic and noise and problems at that corner, and especially with all the students as they come in. And so I'm opposed to it. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you for your testimony. Is anyone but anyone else like to speak? Would the applicant like to come back to the stadium, podium, or very good? So, you know, we've heard a lot of testimony for board discussion. We have no, I mean, there's nothing from a design standpoint, that's not what they're here for. We're simply doing a special assessment, but I think that there's definitely established out in my mind that this would be a compatible use at this location, this neighborhood. And I feel like the compatibility and the nuisance and the proliferation or issues that I have with this, proving this request. I have to agree with you. I think on many different fronts, I would not be in favor. There's quite a few things as, well, first of all, running through the criteria for the special exception at a minimum, I don't think they can meet all the specific criteria. But in addition to that, the proximity to the church, across from 701 Whaley Street, and then this site being literally nestled between two parks or green spaces, adding the fact that it's not in character with the adjacent neighborhood's overall plans. I do not think that this is appropriate for this particular location. I had a question about the concentration criteria. Ms. Hindley, I think you listed there are six. Wow, there's greens, and I know there's two on Rosewood Drive. Three on Rosewood Drive. What I did was I went and did a Google search and looked at a two-mile radius. There is one across the river. There are two down Bluff and Shop Road. I think it's Bluff Road. There's greens, and then up on Rosewood Drive, we have, I believe, there are two. So within a two-mile driving distance, you have alcohol outlets, liquor outlets. And greens is one of the largest liquor outlets we have in the city of Columbia, and that's just barely a half-mile away. You know, the kids use fake IDs, and unless a shift mart purchased the scanning equipment that would recognize real ID, they're going to inadvertently be selling to kids. I mean, just because if you don't have the technology, then you have to take the license that face value. I just have real concerns, and as a resident, feel like I can mosey on over to greens if I need to have some liquor, and really don't see the need for it to be in the neighborhood. Does anybody have any other questions for me? I'm happy to answer. Thank you. So following up on my previous comments, another thing that bothers me here is when they're asking for a special exception for anything, and they don't make any attempt to meet with the adjacent neighborhood associations, I think that's a red flag to begin with. So I just want to state that for the record that additionally I have a problem with that. Marcel has had to step away, but we have a quorum, and we can go ahead and accept a motion. I'd be glad to do so. I'd like to make a motion to deny the special exception to permit a liquor store for the site at 631 Waley Street. A second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. The next item on the regular agenda is item number 8, Case 20180053. It's 2826 Two-Nach Road. This is a special exception to permit many warehousing. If the applicants hear, they can come forward. All right. My name is Zaki Roberts. Is this the K-Mart? No, this is not. This is the old Dick Ford dealership, Dick Smith. Okay. This is the old Pulling Ford site as well. Is that right? Can I have you? Pulling Ford site as well? That's right. Pulling Ford site. Understood. I just wanted to make sure I didn't have a conflict. We're good. Gotcha. Gotcha. So yes, this is the old Ford dealership there on Two-Nach. We're proposing to revitalize this building, make it a U-Haul facility, provide many warehouses there, storage for the community, also many repair shop there as well. We're right down the street right now, about 25 miles away from this current location. So we plan to occupy both spaces, one to primarily rent all U-Haul trucks and one to do storage at. So that's what we have going on and we will ask that we get the special exception to get many warehouses at this location. On the PowerPoint that I gave you guys and ladies, it pretty much just shows the revitalizations that we've done across the country. We go into communities and we love getting these buildings and reusing them for self-storage and different things like that to improve the community pretty much. That's all I got. Could you just, I know you did a great job just on your proposal here, but would you mind going through the criteria on the special exception and just briefly talk about your responses to that. If you want to do, I can read the criteria and you can go to the responses and go by their number one by one if you want to do that. That would help. Would that be helpful to you? Yes, sir. Okay, so we'll have these memorized by now. Describe in what ways for post-special exception will not have a substantial adverse impact on vehicular traffic or vehicular pedestrian safety? Well, we pretty much will be mostly just self-storage. We will have minor trucks coming in there sometime, but we believe that it will be safe as possible. We have over 10 locations in the Columbia area and we barely have any problems when it comes to any vehicle accidents, anything like that. I think it would be safe to say that based on the traffic that a car dealership generates that y'all's business probably is pretty downgraded from that, from standpoint of vehicles coming in and out of the property. Describe in what ways the proposal special exception will not have a substantial adverse impact on adjoining properties and environmental factors such as noise, light, glare and vibration, fumes and odors? Well, it's going to be a pretty quiet facility. None of our facilities really cause any problems when it comes to environmental problems, anything like that. So I don't see any problems happening with that. What are your hours of operation? Usually we're 7-7, 7-7, Monday through Thursday, 7-8 on Friday, and 9-5 on Sunday, 7-7 on Saturday. Three, describe in what ways the proposal special exception will not have a substantial impact on the aesthetic character of the area, orientation of the buildings, et cetera. Actually, I believe that us coming in there and revitalizing this building is definitely going to attract other major businesses in the area to come to that area because we do a pretty good job when I image and package on these buildings. Very good. Number four, describe the ways in which the proposal special exception will not have an adverse impact on public safety or create a nuisance conditions detrimental to the public interest. Security is pretty top-notch. We'll have cameras throughout the whole premises. Usually, I wouldn't say we normally don't have any problems when it comes to creating problems in the community. It's pretty low-key. Secure location. Yes, very secure. And then five, explain how the establishment of the proposal special exception will not create or concentration or proliferation of the same or similar types of businesses in the area. Say that one more time. So one of the criteria is that you don't have a group of the same type businesses all in the same area that dominate. So we do extensive research when purchasing any property. And what we found out is this community right here is undeserved when it comes to self-storage facilities. We do have a self-storage, not us, but another business in the area. This is about maybe a mile away from this particular area. But they don't have enough units to actually support the area with the population in that area. Perfect. Thank you very much. And then finally, explain how the proposed special exception is consistent with the character intent of the underlying district as indicated in the zoning district description with an applicable zoning overlay district goals and requirements. In other words, it's a C3 commercial district. And so obviously self-storage warehousing is allowed there with a special criteria. So is this going to be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and other commercial properties in the area? I believe so, yes. I would tend to agree with that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak in favor or against this application? Good morning. My name is Diane Wally. I want to say thank you and good morning to everybody. He came to me and he asked me about the storage thing. I was really excited about it. That's the way that businesses should do, come to the neighborhood. We went out and had lunch and he thought about Kmart. I told him, don't do Kmart. That's enough. That's enough on too much road. But I was really impressed with this young man. And I told him, I say, in this venture that he's going on, involve our young people, get out and show them how this business run. Start from the bottom, go up. And that's the way these businesses need to do with our neighborhood. We're trying to make our neighborhood look like everybody else and make it better. And I was really impressed with him. So I'm glad, I hope y'all pass this for him. I'm so pleased that you're able to come up here and support of something for your neighborhood. Thank you so much for all of your participation and your neighborhood should be thankful to you. This year, but I'm going to be watching too. We don't that. Yes, ma'am. I guess I'll hold it. Good morning. I'm Katie Bolden. And I'm also a member of Bebedale Association. And like Mrs. Wally said, the young man contacts the association first and asks for our input. And I felt that was very, very important. And after sitting down and talking to him, of course we questioned him quite a bit, but we welcome him to the neighborhood. And not only is he bringing a positive business, but he's bringing jobs to our neighborhood. So we welcome him. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else? Well, that was a very good presentation. And thank you for the comments from the neighborhood association as well. I think that this is an ideal adaptive reuse of this particular property. Certainly is reducing the impact on the residential areas and actually providing a service to them at the same time. So I'm happy to entertain a motion or I'll be glad to make one if somebody would like to do that. And that's the other board comment. I think it's great. Thinking back on what you said, what a great presentation. Very well put together like the examples of the adaptive reuse of the other properties across the country and clearly you all know what you're doing. And I think neighborhood welcome to with open arms. Absolutely in support of this. And I would like to make a motion that we approve the special exception to permit many warehouses at the site at 2826 Do Not Road. I have a motion and I'm subject. Would you amend that just be subject to staff comments? Subject to any staff comments. Very good. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second on favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. And on the agenda is case 20180062 for 2128 Sumter Street. This is a special exception to permit an alternative parking service. And I just want to note before we get started on this one because there were a lot of questions prior to the meeting that what we're looking at today is can crush and run be used versus regular improved paving. No site plan is required with this application. The layout of the parking lot and all compliance with code will be reviewed by staff. So this is strictly just just for the alternative surface other than paving for the parking space. Yes, just crush and run versus pavement is what is being requested. Got you. The applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Frank Cason. I'm with Cason Development Group. We're a local real estate developer and have been fortunate to be involved in a number of the projects on Sumter Street and Franklin and some of the adaptive re-use there. As Ms. Bailey said, this is a fairly straightforward request as we have continued to see more interest in growth in this area that has brought a need for additional parking as well. This lot currently is grasped and has historically had some homeless issues so we're hopeful that cleaning this up and turning it into a parking lot will help the area, the parking area and the businesses that are currently there and moving there but also help to clean up the people who tend to sleep in the back. So happy to answer any questions or go through the requirements here if you would like. Can we just go through the criteria there? Number one, the proposed special exception we believe will not negatively impact vehicular traffic or pedestrian safety. In fact, we feel to the contrary it should improve. We're proposing to create a safe parking option by adding a gravel lot. Number two, the proposed parking surface will not adversely impact the adjoining properties concerning environmental factors. Grave a lot will absorb water more than asphalt and will not create water runoff issues. We recognize we're in an area that does have these issues. We've seen them for a number of years as well so we'd prefer to not do anything to increase that. Number four, the alternative surface will not impact public safety or create new conditions detrimental to the public's interest. The alternative surface will provide additional safe parking for the area. Number five, the special exception use is not necessary on all of the other properties in the area since many have existing asphalt or concrete parking lots. Number six, the mixed use and industrial aesthetic of the area we believe will be improved and added to by the addition of a new parking lot. The gravel surface, we feel will be in keeping with the character in the area that many have tried to maintain. Number seven, the proposed special exception is we feel appropriate for this location because it creates another unique parking area and surface that is compatible with the surrounding area and its current and permitted uses. Number eight, the proposed special exception will not adversely affect the public interest and will benefit the public by creating a parking area that is aesthetically pleasing. I suppose in the written application we need to amend the granite gravel where we're noted to crush and run, right? Yes, the applicant requested after the original application was submitted to amend it to the crush and run. So, just a brief explanation that we met with our site contractor on this site and he actually said, I would not recommend doing that surface here because of the potential for it to run off. So, for that reason he said, I'll recommend you do a crush and run because that way it will compact and it will not run off the surrounding properties. Is there any questions from the board? Is there anyone here to speak in favor against this application? Hello, I'm Will Thrift, President of Cotton Town Neighborhood Association and the Neighborhood Association is not weighing in for or against this project in this request but rather we want to make known our concerns about the development of the project and about the development of the property as proposed. The letter you've gotten there, the first concern has to do with stormwater runoff and we asked that the city do its due diligence to study that and ensure that the runoff does not impact the residences that are on the downhill slope. In addition, we have, I guess, a question about whether or not this parking lot will entail a disabled lot or disabled parking space which may require a solid surface which would be an improvement to the property and how that may impact the stormwater runoff. And additionally, we want to ensure that the crush and run material used is installed in such a way that it minimizes the migration of that material towards the residences primarily on the eastern side of the property. And that's pretty much it as far as this request goes. We do have some concerns about buffers and that kind of thing, but that will be addressed in the future. Thank you very much. Those are very legitimate concerns. We appreciate your addressing those to us. Okay, thanks. Just on behalf of staff, the parking lot will have to comply with all relevant city development codes, so stormwater, landscaping, all staff will be reviewing. Right. That's not really our purview at this point. That's a different hurdle that will be taken. And this is simply a special exception for an alternative to paving. I do have a relevant question, I think, to those conditions, though. So is there any difference in terms of what would be required relative to complying with stormwater, land development, landscaping, and buffering between what is already an acceptable surface for this parking lot and the proposed alternative surface? Meaning, if we go with the alternative, approve this alternative surface, are landscaping requirements different or buffering requirements different? No. Okay, so on all of the elements that the parking lot would have to meet that you just mentioned, stormwater, landscaping, land development buffers, they're the same relative to... Those would be the same. The road requires parking lots to be improved with pavement or concrete, and then you have this special exception to where you can use another surface, such as the crush and run. So that's where this comes in, but it doesn't cancel out any of the other requirements. Or it doesn't minimize or change what's required. Land development or anything like that. Would the applicant like to come back to the stadium? Dress any of the comments that were made? I'm happy to address whichever ones you all would like for me to... And just Mr. Thrift and I... Make sure you're into... Yeah, go ahead. Sorry. Mr. Thrift and I, just so you know, have spoken about this, he's the President of the Neighborhood Association, so we did talk a number of times about this, and he shared his concerns initially. We knew that we had to follow the same regulations that Mr. Schaefer was reporting to. So, I mean, obviously these are legitimate concerns, but what I'm hearing from Rachel is that these concerns will be addressed by the city and their engineer for the runoff, whether what, you know, what detention or retainage would be required, and that would include, you know, if there's a difference between, I don't know if there's a difference between question-running pavement from the city standpoint, if there is, that it would take into account any paved, hardened areas that would be used for handicapped parking as opposed to question-run, and that, I think a legitimate concern is that the parking lot be construed so that the migration of the gravel particle and stuff like that are not moved into the neighborhood through rainstorms. I think that's, I think that would be an important part of this approval. So an applicant had stated in his application that he is going to be putting parking stops as well. How would you, Frank, how would you address the potential migration from thunderstorms and stuff like that but the gravel just washing down into somebody's yard or area? Yeah, again, so that was where the chip granite that we originally proposed is a smaller rock size, and so it tends to move more. So you can do that on a flat surface, and this was new to me too, this came from our site contractor, but the gravel that he proposed is one that comes together more and is much less likely to move and that was the purpose of it. So as a condition of the special accession would you be willing to ensure that, you know, that doesn't happen and if it does, you would be willing to repair it so that it would not happen? Absolutely. We have as much interest in protecting this area as we feel, at least as anyone, so we're very invested. I have a number of questions. Anyone else have a question? My civil engineer have a question. I think just a quick comment. I know we've addressed it many times that in order to move forward with anything here you're going to have to meet all the city's land development regulations in order to get your permit. So all of this will be addressed but just as an additional comment I think one could actually argue that the crush and run he's proposing here because of the small voids that are between some of the crush and run actually would produce less potential stormwater runoff than the paved traditional asphalt surface. So if runoff is the concern I would argue that this crush and run is not only not any worse but actually a little bit better. I mean just speaking to that if I'm reading the staff comments in here basically the stormwater manager says that the properties are the same between concrete asphalt and what's being proposed. Is that correct? They're usually considered to be. What he's stating here is compacted gravel which is different than the crush and run because there are some voids with the crush and runoff. Driven upon it could become compacted so that's why he ended it with stormwater. We'll look at it for certain. Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other comments? Yeah I've noticed a young lady back there she's very patient so she moved on. I know we want to give her an opportunity to speak. Sure. Yeah that's it. Would you like to come up? Yes ma'am. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you. My name is Patty Marinelli. I'm a resident of the Cotton Town neighborhood and I just had a couple more comments and questions regarding the crush and run surface. And first I wanted to thank Mr. Cason for bringing this project forward. We really do need the parking and I appreciate his looking ahead towards not having that stormwater drainage because there is a slope there. I'm not an expert by any means in crush and run but I've been doing a little research and talked to some engineers about it. And one of the concerns I had is that over time I've been told that crush and run becomes actually more compacted and then that could increase the possibility of the stormwater draining. And I wonder how does that work? If it does become more compacted and we begin to have the stormwater drainage with the owner be required then to remediate it even if it wasn't part of this proposal. That's my first question. Well, you know, it just so happens we have a civil engineer on our board here that might be able to answer that question for you. I think it's a question for staff. Honestly, I think it's really, we're getting out of what we're asked to do here today. I think your question would be better addressed to the civil engineer. Okay, and then my second question maybe is the same thing. When somebody applies for a surface like crush and run, does that involve permission or rather, how to say it, approval of the entire process like I understand they're supposed to be a fabric underlayment and then certain amount of gravel and then the crush and run goes on top. Is that what we're approving or are you just saying any kind of crush and run, just the top layers allowed to be put on? It would be what would be required by the city of Columbia's engineering department which would take into consideration runoff, migration of the particles and the effect of that on the rest of the environments around the line. So all that's taken into account. Correct. And so that's really not our purview, but in general, you know, it could be argued, I think, safe in saying this, that as opposed to asphalt paving, that this would be less impactful on the neighborhood from a standpoint of runoff than going completely paved on the lot. Thank you. Yes, ma'am, thank you for your testimony. Very good. So we've heard all of the criteria and we've had some very good issues and concerns that have been raised here. We've got an affirmation from the applicant that should the migration of the particles become a problem with the neighborhood, that he will remedy that in the future. I think that along with staff comments would be what I would propose in my motion to approve this amendment based on the applicant's testimony and subject to the terms and conditions of staff's comments. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Then I will accept the motion to adjourn. I move that we adjourn. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. We're now adjourned. Thank you.