 Welcome to Planning Commission members, staff and guests. We ask for your patience during this meeting. Multiple staff members are here and behind the scenes with us today are Lucinda Statler, Planning Administrator, Hope Hasty, Interim Zoning Administrator, Jonathan Chambers, Land Development Administrator, and Andrew Livinggood, annexation coordinator. If you're watching the meeting via City TV, you will see live images or still images of Planning Commission members and the administrators. However, images of the applicant and the public will not be visible. Today, public participation will be heard here in person or via email by those watching on City TV. When participating, please provide your name for documentation purposes. The public may stream the meetings through City TV at www.youtube.com slash user slash Columbia SC government. The public may submit letters and statements via email to COC board meeting at Columbia SC dot gov cleaning 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. If you're here today to speak about a case, you must speak up when the chairperson calls for public comment. I'll go ahead and call the roll. Mr. Frost. Here. Ms. James. Here. Mr. Cohn. Here. Ms. Davis. Here. Ms. Hartz. Here. Ms. Thomas. And Mr. Tupper. Here. We have a quorum. I'll give a brief review of the meeting format. Applicants with requests before the Planning Commission are allotted a presentation time of ten minutes. This time should include but is not limited to an overview of the project, the case history, and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicants such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by Planning Commission or staff regarding requests. Members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns in intervals of two minutes. The administrator has a timer and will make presenters aware of when their time has expired. The Planning Commission reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case-by-case basis. Are there any changes to the agenda since publication? There is one change to the agenda. Item number six on the regular agenda, which is a zoning map amendment. This was ZMA-2021-0011 on Balsam Road and Canal Drive has been withdrawn. Okay, thank you. The Planning Commission uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion and vote. Examples of such items include approval of site plans, annexations, and street names. If a member of the Planning Commission or the general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, you must speak up after the consent agenda is read. Then that item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the regular meeting. The Planning Commission then approves the remaining consent agenda items. I'll go ahead and read through the consent agenda. The first item is the approval of the November 1st, 2021 minutes. Item two is under zoning map amendments, ZMA-2021-0009, 2401 To Notch Road, and .21 Acres on the east side of Waite Street. This is a request to rezone the property from Community Activity Center Corridor, CAC to Residential Mix District, RM1. Case number four is ZMA-2021-0010. This is 2632 Millwood Avenue, 2627, 2526, and 2623 Cherry Street. This is a request to rezone the parcel from Office and Institutional, Residential Mixed, and Mixed Use District with a historic preservation overlay to Mixed Use District with a historic preservation overlay. Case five is under site plan review. This is S-Plan 2021-0022 at 291 Harveston Boulevard. This is a request for site plan approval for the construction of a 4,300 square foot car wash. The property is zoned PD. And that concludes the consent agenda. We've heard the consent agenda. Is there anyone from Planning Commission that would like any item removed from consent agenda? Hearing none. Is there anyone from the public, either in person or watching on TV, live city TV, that would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda? If so, please speak now or send an email. Again, when participating, please provide your name for the minutes. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Yes, ma'am. We'll remove item number two from the consent agenda and place it in the regular meeting. Okay. Yeah, I think that's item three. Oh, it's item number three? Yes. Two-notch road one? Two-notch road. Okay. Can y'all come up and speak? We're having a hard time hearing you on item three. Okay. No, that's fine. We'll call you up when we get to that point in the meeting. It has been requested item three be removed from the consent agenda and moved down to regular meeting. Do we have any emails from live TV? We don't have any emails about the consent agenda. Okay. If anybody from live TV has any items to remove, you can send that via email. We have removed item number three from the consent agenda. Understanding and hearing that, can I get a motion and a second to accept the consent agenda? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda excluding item number three. Got a motion. Can I get a second? Got a motion and a second. All in favor? Signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say no. The ayes have it. Consent agenda is approved. The Planning Commission will now move forward with those items on the regular agenda. We will use the following outline for regular agenda items. The administrator will introduce the case. The applicant will have 10 minutes to make a presentation. Planning Commission may ask questions. The public will be allowed to participate via email or in person. Planning Commission may ask additional questions of the applicant. And then action by the Planning Commission will move forward. The first case on the regular agenda since we took number three off of consent is a zoning map amendment. This is ZMA-2021-0009 for 24-01 two-notch road and .21 acres on the east side of White Street. A request to rezone the property from Community Activity Center in Port Orre, the residential mix district one. Let me go back to those slides so we can. Okay. So this is the property. Basically this is, there's the location of, there's actually two parcels. That shows the zoning of the current zoning and then the surrounding RM-1 residential mix. And so the request is to rezone from CAC to RM-1, just consistent with the other properties existing on White Road. I don't know if the applicant is here. Are there any questions from Planning Commission to staff? If you're not, is the applicant here? Is the applicant present and want to speak? Ma'am, come on up. Just state your full name and address for the record. I'm assuming you can. Sorry. I'm Lala Anasals and I am president CEO of Homeless Snowmore. We are located at Alpha Two-Notch Road. We are also related to Live Oak Place, LLC. We are asking for the down zoning of the property in question so we can expand on this property. We have a property called Myrtle Grove, which is a 15-unit affordable housing development that we recently completed in May. The current zoning does, will not allow for expansion of these, this property. We have successfully redeveloped the former Gates of Hell, which was the property there. This particular piece of property has been vacant for decades, but zoned as is, cannot support any other housing. We are not going, we are not interested in purchasing the property that faces Two-Notch Road. So we have asked to bifurcate the actual piece of property. As is, the families that are calling Myrtle Grove home are mixed income. This is not voucher driven. They are two- and three-bedroom townhomes. We have been members of the community for, since the mid-80s. We've had informal conversations with the neighborhood. There have been no formal neighborhood association meetings, but we have spoken with Representative Leon Howard, Puff Howard, who owns the property next door. In fact, we were approached about purchasing this property when we developed Myrtle Grove. However, without the rezoning, we cannot develop any further housing. Since May, we have had no issues. And again, it's a mixed income model, so it is, this is not low income affordable housing. This is, has been designed so it is teachers and public servants living next to those at a 50% income. So it has never been our intent to do anything other than develop safe, clean, attractive affordable housing. That is really it. We have worked very closely with the city to determine the best way of rezoning the property. Again, it, the way it is, has been bifurcated. It will be up to the current owner as to what happens to the frontage on Toonite Road. So we will not actually purchase any of the property that is that, that first front piece on the slide. Thank you. Understood. Thank you. We may have some questions for you if you want to remain standing. All right. Any, any questions from Planning Commission to the applicant at this point? No questions. Thank you. Is there anybody from the general public that would like to speak on behalf of this project? Good evening. My name is Alex Furges. This property falls within our neighborhood, the Jones-McDonald neighborhood. And I'm president of the Jones-McDonald Neighborhood Association. We have had a very good relationship with the St. Lawrence Place and Myrtle Grove. So it's not that we are saying no to it. It's just that saying we have not been respected. No one has come to us to discuss this change in our community. And we need to know what changes are desired and why. How can we be overlooked when we live there? The Jones-McDonald Neighborhood Association, the neighborhood itself, is an older, small, proud community. Many older families whose matriarchs and patriarchs are passing on. We're dying. We're old. We are the only community in the city of Columbia where youngsters can actually walk to school regardless of level. They can walk to Carver Lyon, Lore Elementary School, Watkins Nance Elementary School, W.A. Perry Middle School, and C.A. Johnson High School. And if you want to, you can walk to Benedictine Island so you can walk to any level of education from our community without a problem. What is happening in our community is that we're aging out. And when I say we're aging out, that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we are respected and someone comes to us and says, we want to change this to that. We should be respected. We live there. Those of us who are left in our small neighborhood are concerned that we're not getting the consideration, the respect, more the city services that we deserve and we pay taxes for. When codes are not enforced in our community at the same level as in others, in some others, when the streets not swept and we hear all of this all the time, then we are not respected. This is another example that we have not been consulted. Thank you, ma'am. We have not been asked. Your time is up. I appreciate your comments. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Is there anyone present, anyone else present that would like to speak on this case? Do we have any emails that we're aware of? Not about this case. Any other questions from Planning Commission to the applicant or staff? Did they reach out to the community? If you'd come up, ma'am. Did the applicant reach out to the community? Yes, we've had informal conversations. There has not been a neighborhood association meeting in 18 months. In fact, there is a disagreement right now as to the mode of communication. We have, Miss Ferguson and I talk all the time. I walked in thinking this was on the consent agenda and did not know there was an issue. Like I literally just signed my name quickly to speak tonight. That was just while it was kind of stumbling and stammering. Myrtle Grove, we presented the plans of how it was going to look to the neighborhood association. The officers were with us every step of the way. We have been a part of this community personally for 17 years. So there has been no intended disrespect whatsoever. The ribbon cutting for Myrtle Grove, it was named after Miss Myrtle Gordon. That is where the name came from and her daughter hung the wreath on the first door. So the thought of the neighborhood not being involved is it's not true. And the voice shaking is only to be a better part of this community. So yes, to answer your question. Okay, thank you. Okay, are there any other questions from Planning Commission? Ma'am? We had a meeting, a community meeting last Tuesday evening, 5.30 until 7.30. So we are meeting. The other thing that I'd like to say is that I came to your office. I went to the office and we have been good neighbors. But we were not consulted about this change and we want to know the purpose and the reason for it. And we have a right to know because we live there. We are being overwhelmed with homelessness. And we talked during a meeting last year about saying we do not want homeless no more, big sign, welcoming people to our community. We are homeowners. Of course there are some renters, yes. But that's not how we want to be perceived from the outside. And we have a right to do that because we own homes in the community. And we have had meetings and we had one last Tuesday evening at the library. 5.30 until 7.30. I can get you the minutes of those meetings if you'd like. Thank you. Yes ma'am, thank you. All right, any other questions from Planning Commission? I have a quick question for staff. Was this with the new zoning overlay? Was this the zoning, the similar zoning that was in place before the overlay? Well, this is, I mean the CAC is part of the new zoning for the city. So is that what you're asking by overlaying the new zoning? Yes. Yes. I believe the CAC was previously C3, which is a commercial zoning district. And then the RM1 parcels were also a residential. So it's very consistent with what was there before. It's just the new zoning districts that became effective at the end of August. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Chair, I have a question of the applicant, please. Yes ma'am. Applicant, would you come forward please? The current community activity center, is this where you're planning to build a new facility, the Metal Grows? And if so, what is the overall acreage or capacity of this building? Is it just the point two, one acreage you're seeking or is it more property than that? No, there's nothing on the property now. So if you look at the actual, I'm not sure why it says community activity center, to be honest with you. The property has been vacant for decades. It was an oil service center. Next, it's not on this current map. Next to the property are 15 units of their townhouses. On the other side is an education center. And the what, it's an expansion of those townhouses. We'll look just like what's there already. And then the property that actually fronts to Notch Road is owned by, it's all technically still owned by the oil service company. If it is not rezoned, we will not purchase. And frankly, it will continue to sit as it has sat, which is an empty lot where they park 18 wheelers because it's not developable. Just for clarification, the CAC community activity center corridor, that's the current zoning for the property, right? Yes, that's just the zoning district. It's not to indicate a community activity center there currently. All right, any other questions from Planning Commission to staff or the applicant? Yes, ma'am? There's any argument or anything about this coming, this change in our community. Our thing is that we should be respected. Before you make any changes in our community, let us know. Talk to us about it. And we did have a meeting and nobody is misrepresenting anything. We have met with Lila and many times. We supported the changes. But don't walk over us. Don't think that we don't care about our community. And we know that our community is old and it is. We aren't dying out. I'm almost 80 years old. I shouldn't have to go through this. And we like our community and we're proud of it. So please don't tell us that we aren't meeting because we are. Don't tell us that we haven't talked to you because we have. I came into the office, the center's office, what, two weeks ago. Went to the meeting for an office, to her office for a meeting. And we weren't told, nobody asked us. We just saw the sign up and we don't know why. And that's what we want to know. We want to know what's the purpose of the change and we should know. We want to know why the change is necessary because we have a business right next to this property. So, I mean, what's the deal? Why can't we be told we actually need someone from our community on that board? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Sure. Are we ready to make a motion? Any other questions? Here and now, and I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I like to make a motion to approve the zoning map amendment at 2401 to not trade and at .21 acres east side of our Wake Street. Got a motion to approve. Can I get a second? Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say no. No. I think the ayes have it, but do you want to do a roll call? Lucinda? Okay. The ayes have it. The motion is approved to rezone. I believe we now need a motion. We're moving to executive session. Yes, sir. Okay. We're going to move, I'll request a motion to move into executive session that will include our planning commission, city staff, and the city attorney. Can I get a motion? Mr. Chairman, can we move into the executive session? Got a motion. Can I get a second? Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor to move into executive session signify by saying aye. So to state, you're moving to go into executive session for the reasons stated in the agenda. Okay. I'd like to clarify the motion. We are moving into the executive session for the reasons stated on the agenda. And just to be clear, for the receipt of legal advice related to matters covered by attorney, client privilege pursuant to South Carolina code 30-4-70A2. Got a motion. Can I get a second? Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor to signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. We'll move into executive session. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to come out of executive session. Got a motion. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor to signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. And just for the record, there was no action taken during the executive session. Now continue with our regular agenda item moving on to item number eight on the agenda. A request for a reconsideration by City Council of Esplat, 2021-0087, 16.2 acres, 750 and 754 South Beltline, 1400 block of McEl Lane, TMS number 13712-02-07 through dash 10 and 13712-02-16. Request for site plan approval for construction of a 19-lot cluster housing development, South Beltline subdivision. The properties were zoned, RS-2, single family residential at the time of the application. Can I get a motion that we reconsider this? Mr. Chairman, based on City Council's request for a reconsideration of this matter, I moved to grant a re-hearing of the site plan decision reached on November 1st, 2021 regarding spot 2021-0087. Got a motion for reconsideration. Is there a second? Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say no. We'll move with the reconsideration. Right. This is going to bring us to site plan review, 16.2 acres, 750 and 754 South Beltline Boulevard and 1400 block of McEl Lane, South Boulevard subdivision. This is the 16.2 acre property is located in the 700 block of South Beltline Boulevard and the 1400 block of McEl Lane. The majority of the site is located in the flood plain and contains wetlands. This development will be clustered on a 4.2 acre portion of the site and the remainder of the property will be undisturbed and retained as open space. The proposed development will contain a total of 19 single family residences with a lot sizes between 4,200 square feet and 6,300 square feet. And access to the residences will be through a alleyway along South Beltline Boulevard and a cul-de-sac that will be constructed along McEl Lane. And should the planning commission be inclined to grant this approval, staff will request that the approval be with staff comments. I believe the applicant is present and can explain their case. Thank you. Are there any questions of the planning commission for staff at this time before we have the applicant move forward? No questions. If the applicant's here, please step up. If you want to present, represent your case again to us. I'm glad to. Nothing's changed since we were here the last time. And so we came back but didn't really have a lot of direction as to what the commission was asking from us. So I'll be glad to answer any questions. Or I can represent the whole thing but nothing's changed since last month. I think it'd be nice just to be clear on how many lots you're requesting in your application, at least for me. Yes, sir. I'll be glad to. So we're requesting 19 lots. It's going to be 75% open space, just like was mentioned earlier. It's permitted under the cluster zoning ordinance. Not sure any other thing that y'all would like for me to present. I'll be glad to answer any questions though. Sure. But we are requesting 19. Yes, sir. Okay. Any questions from planning commission? Okay. Thank you. We'll open it up for public comment period. Is there anybody from the public that would like to speak for or against? If you would just state your name and address for the record, please. Yep. Mark Cox at 4202 Michael Lane. We've been in front of this commission a couple of times now asking you to help us keep the character of our neighborhood. And you do know our concerns with the lot and how much of it is underwater in the cluster housing. If our neighborhoods, comments, consensus and building everything together doesn't really make a difference in confronting the zoning laws, then why are we given the opportunity to speak? There is a reason this site plan hasn't unanimously been approved and it isn't about the zoning law. It's because we all know this isn't a reasonable development for our neighborhood. In South Carolina, it's still completely legal to beat your wife on the courthouse steps on a Sunday. But I think we can agree that the law, while in the books, isn't very reasonable. When approaching a four-way stop at a motorized vehicle, you must discharge a firearm into the air at least 100 feet before the intersection to warn oncoming horse traffic. Act of South Carolina with law? Absolutely. Does that make it reasonable? Under official South Carolina law, you must be at least 18 to play or operate a pinball machine. Is that reasonable? Are you seeing a pattern here? We're asking that you be reasonable about the neighborhood that we live in. That we raise our families in. So what is reasonable? I reached out to Lafay Homes last week to try to reach a reasonable compromise. My neighbors, the South Kilburn Neighborhood Association and I all agreed that we would support their development if they would reduce their current site plan from 19 lots to 15 lots, removing the four houses that were closest to our existing homes. After a few follow-up calls and finally at 2.45 today, Lafay called me back to say that they were not interested in our compromise. But they did acknowledge that it was a reasonable offer. So we're asking that you do the reasonable thing and not allow this small lot cluster development in our neighborhood. You wouldn't want it in yours. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak for or against? Good evening. My name is Dolores Glip and I resided 4207 Michael Lane off South Beltline. On Monday, November the first 2021, the Columbia City Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting to consider approval of this 16-acre track. And of course, the developers, we raise concerns to the developers along with the residents in the neighborhood have concerns about traffic flow, infrastructure, drainage, and more specifically the number of homes that the developers proposed to build on four acres of the 16-acre track. The commission had asked the developers to meet with the residents to see if a acceptable compromise could be made. The developers representative, Mr. Bowers, met with the neighborhood residents and offered to consider 17 homes instead of 19. No other considerations were made. We asked that they consider building fewer, 10 to 15, larger homes that would still allow them to develop the area and make a reasonable profit. At the second commission meeting, the developer presented the same plan as he did this evening. Mr. Bowers said if he had to meet with the residents and they were not able to make a compromise. Mr. Bowers stated that he did meet with the residents. Many of them had differing ideas about the number of houses. He said that the number of homes they wanted to build, 19 was within the zoning requirements in the place at time, and that's what they wanted to go with. I can't help but wonder if the developers would be making that same pitch if they were on the other side of the creek where the more affluent Woodlands neighborhood is located. My neighborhood is zoned as RF1, which calls for building larger and not smaller homes in the area. On the other hand, old Woodlands is classified as RF2, which actually allows for smaller homes to be built there. If the developer insists on building these many homes in such a small space, I suggest they consider buying property there, which the zoning would allow for. I think we all know the answer to that scenario. The smaller minority community where I live seemed to be an easier target to get approval for development. And it appears that the only interest that the developers have is in the profit they can make from this development. Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak? James Whitney Denton, 1315 Hibiscus Street, but also on the Secretary of South Colborne Neighborhoods Association and Treasurer of Columbia Council of Neighborhoods. Ms. Dolores just mentioned their area is a part of the old Woodlands community. Technically, it is. But under the Rosewood 25-year plan, they fall under that from South Edisto over to Gills Creek Parkway. We have tried to be reasonable and try to reach out to Mr. Bowers to negotiate just to remove the adjacent lots, three from Michael, one from the opposite side, which would then allow for more of a buffer of the natural trees to stay, which would in turn comply with part of Rosewood's 25-year plan to protect the tree canopy, which is a big part of the plan. Unfortunately, the GIS map photo doesn't also show the tree canopy that's in that area. Also, the DOT attended our neighborhood meeting last Thursday. The DOT has not given any approval as far as coming out, looking at the safety of a one-way end and a one-way out, and to ensure the driveway has adequate distance. Tony Magwood attended our meeting. He is the engineer for Richland County and part of Lexington County. This has not been done. There is verbal consent of a one-way end and one-way out, but other than that, the DOT has not green-stamped this. So we are asking you please to consider all of the various concerns. And the residents who immediately butt up against that, this will be what they see out of their backyard. And right now, this is a beautiful, natural area. And they have asked for our help in assisting, and we absolutely are going to help protect our neighborhood. I live on the opposite side of Beltline, and I just want to see our community protected and to grow within our plan. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak for or against? Hi, my name is Terri Bryant. I reside at 901 South Beltline Boulevard. I just want to speak really quickly. My wonderful neighbors have spoken. I just want to say to this commission, one of the things that I saw is that you're supposed to assist us in policy decisions that impact our community and that the involvement from the community is strongly encouraged. We've been here multiple times, and we are representing those that cannot be here because we are a working class neighborhood, and so people are at work or just getting home from work. But you've had signatures. You've had in-person concerns. You've had emails from this community. The voice of the people are really speaking to you and asking you to assist us in this process. So we're not opposed to the development, but we are opposed to how they're trying to do it. We've asked for concessions. We've spoken directly to the developer. We've voiced our concerns, and I don't think we're being unreasonable. I understand that they're in it to make a profit. Again, but after a certain point, just because it's legal for them to do 19 homes, it doesn't make it right. And it can negatively impact the long-standing community members. So we just ask you, again, to reconsider all of the things that my neighbors have said to you and really, really consider the impact. We don't mind increasing development in the area. We just want it to remain characteristic of what we already have. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else? Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Parker and I reside at 4204 Michael Lane. So my property abuts directly up against the property that's questionable for development. I just really wish that Mr. Bowers would compromise with us as far as the number of lots. I think that that would make it better. As stated by some of the previous comments with the 25-year plan for Rosewood preserving the tree canopy, I just think that that's important. And again, just because something is legal and allowed under the current zoning and, for that matter, the other old zoning doesn't make it right. I mean, you've got to think about what's reasonable. We really would like to work together with him to come to some sort of compromise. And we hope that y'all will see that with us. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good evening. I am Michelle Huggins. I live at 1111 Super Street. I am the president of the South Kilburn Neighborhood Association. We met with Mr. Bowers originally, Ms. Whitney Denton and I, and we had questions. He answered all of them. We brought them back to the neighborhood. At that time, there was not signage that was put up, which was required. So we ended up having to come back again. During that timeframe, Mr. Bowers met with the community. There wasn't a full consensus at that time. They met again. We met again after they had met with you. He did not bring anything to the table that would have been saying, hey, we want to work with this community. We want that. We are not opposed to this development. We just want it to be in character, in character with the neighborhood. If you actually go out there and look at the houses that are there, you will see that this will not be in character with it. The proposed bill, right now after we spoke with DOT, they said actually for each home it's 2.5 drivers. If you did 15 homes, that would be 37.5 drivers that would be coming out onto Beltline in two different areas. That's a lot of traffic. You might not think it is, but considering that the south Beltline is also the DOT testing route for drivers that are just getting their CDL and or their regular driver's license, it does have an impact. It also would create an issue where people would be going into the neighborhood to avoid this area because, of course, you're going to be having to stop. Well, then that means they're going to be coming in off of Deerwood or if they're coming in from the other direction, they would be going in off of Live Oak, Bright Avenue. It could be any of the other ones before then. We just ask for you to please work with us to work with Mr. Bowers. We would like 15 homes, and we'd ask for you to please consider that. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else present to speak for or against? Let me just also say that we encourage those who would like to comment via e-mail to begin sending in letters and e-mails. This was stated previously in the meeting as well, but e-mails can be sent to COC board meeting at columbiasc.gov. And I'll look to staff to see if anybody has e-mailed at all yet. We actually have several e-mails. Okay. Would you like to go ahead and start reading them? If you would read through those, that'd be great. Sure. So the first e-mail is from Linda Epting. She says, I've been able to come to all the other meetings and wish I could be at this one. You need to know that even though we don't have as many people there tonight, we are not dwindling in our resolve against this development as it stands. All we want, let me say that again, all we want is a development that is like the neighborhood that surrounds it. Please take in consideration this is not all what has been worked on and talked about for years for this area. Once again, I refer you to the Rosewood 25-year plan that this cluster plan will take away from the area. Our utilities are not able to handle what is there now, and by allowing this development as they show it to you today, we'll lower our standard of living. City of Columbia has to take a stand that cluster housing is not the way to go in an older area with older homes and utilities. This is not the right fit for this area at all. These are patio homes that have a place, and this is not it. These extremely small lots do not reflect our area in any way. We have shown you multiple times what our neighborhood looks like. Older homes, nice big yards with trees. We only want consistency to our neighborhood. They have already proven that the quality of the townhouses they built down the road are nowhere close to resembling the quality and look of our neighborhood. Please take a stand and not allow such a development to diminish our neighborhood and our quality of life. Linda Epting next door. The next email is from Rachel Reeves. She says, good evening. I have attended many of the meetings with SKNA and Mr. Bowman. The proposal to bring 19 additional new homes is not only unreasonable but unsafe. The particular area they are planning to add traffic to is right in my backyard. I literally cannot turn onto South Beltline from this area due to significant blind spots and unsafe drivers. We have addresses. We have addressed this with Bowman, and money still seems to be the only thing on their minds. Is money truly more important than the safety and well-being of both current residents and their future residents? My thoughts are absolutely no. On a regular basis, there are wrecks and high-speed chases on this very road, so we really need to risk more lives. Not only is adding more homes unsafe, but it is not in alignment with Rosewood 25-year plan. Please refer to this and recognize the amount of time and energy that went into this planning. This construction is completely out of line with what was agreed upon in this plan. Not to mention the wildlife and nature that will be destroyed in the process. Our neighborhood has a special charm, a charm that this design does not withhold. Please consider these items before ruling what is best for the safety and well-being of our community. While 15 is still more than I would like, 15 is the maximum amount of homes that I think would be acceptable for the small amount, the small lot of land. Additionally, they should truly be ruled to increase lot size rather than cluster homes since the rezoning occurred immediately after the submittal. Thanks, Rachel. This is another sentence from Miss Rachel Reeves that says, it is not if someone's child will be hit and killed in this area, it is when. The next email is from Nan Trout. There was a misunderstanding that this item was going to be discussed in executive session and not allowing public comment. I find out otherwise today and will not make it back in town in time for this meeting. I've been at all the other meetings on different aspects of this project. I would like to refresh your memory on those points before deciding on this cluster development. This development does not look in any way like the rest of the neighborhood. In fact, it resembles a trend that would be outdated and look outdated in the near future. Our neighborhood is a classic Columbia neighborhood that never goes out of style. This is a patio style development that does not fit. I've presented pictures of our neighborhood to you that show large lots, trees, and the surrounding areas. We want a development that resembles our neighborhood. I made spreadsheets that showed the lot sizes of everyone surrounding the area. This proposal does not resemble our neighborhood, not even close. The lot sizes need to vary like the ones all around the proposed development. These lots are too small. A reminder that the average lot size in all the neighborhoods surrounding it are from 5.18 acres to .34 acre. Across the street, there are six homes on the same frontage. They want 11. There's a nice mix of small and large lots with a variety of houses. That is what we want to be approved. Lester housing is not the right fit for this area and someone has to take a stand just because you can, should you. We brought in a petition from the entire neighborhood. Shouldn't that mean something when no one wants this type of development? I remind you of when I talked about the houses that were moved when Dreher was enlarged. They moved several of those homes onto one lot where there was only one home before. It was going to be great for the neighborhood. It is a rental rundown mess now. I'm afraid this is too what we are in for with this type of development. Is this what you would want right next to your house? If you wouldn't want it, why would you vote for us to have it, especially when we are already dealing with sewer and water issues? Most of all, what is going to be done with the property that is not being built on? We have heard different scenarios each time we have met. Is the HOA going to maintain ownership? Must the HOA maintain ownership to use this property to calculate homes? If these questions cannot be answered with 100% clarity and certainty, this is also a reason not to allow this development. To recap, no one in the neighborhood wants this development. We are fine with development that resembles and fits into what we have worked so hard to accomplish in this area. We will continue to fight for what is best for us. The next e-mail is from Stacy Neum. It says, I oppose the proposed development on South Belt Line, Michael Lane. This development does not consider or follow the future view for our area as laid out by the City of Columbia planning and development, a Roswell Development and Corridor Plan, which does not include the type of subpar building construction and tiny lots this developer is proposing. I refer you to the development of Valencia Park Ballfield, which is a project of this developer. That project has poor construction quality, used cheap materials, and is void of character. The Roswell Development and Corridor Plan lays out a 25-year plan for a community that allows for development and growth, but not at the expense of losing the community's character and sense of place. We take pride in our community. We love the trees, vegetation, and wildlife. We enjoy our spacious yards, the quality construction, and character of our homes. The Roswell Development and Corridor Plan lays out the desire to extend the tree canopy on our roads. This developer is removing all the trees, and their proposed small-life properties do not provide much room for lawns or vegetation. This developer is just being greedy and trying to bleed maximum profit return at our expense. They should not be allowed to calculate the levels that can be squeezed into the buildable space using the full property, which is mostly wetlands and unbuildable. The Roswell Development and Corridor Plan notes, quote, the overwhelming need for traffic calming and other similar transportation adjustments to make the corridor and the neighborhood a more inviting pedestrian and bicycle-friendly space. Our roadways are already struggling to keep up with the traffic and repairs are constantly needed. Adding potentially 40-plus more cars to this area will create a bigger problem, especially the section of road in front of the proposed development that is already constantly being repaired. I have witnessed numerous cars shoot off the road because of excessive speeding in this section of South Beltline. The Roswell Development and Corridor Plan includes strong support for making Roswell a greener neighborhood by introducing sustainable infrastructure techniques as part of this overall plan. Our sewer and water system is already strained. We have been smelling sewage. South Beltline and Edmond just experienced a line break just a few weeks ago. As of today, there are at least three waterline leaks in my neighborhood. We have to change our in-home filtration more than normal due to the debris in our water supply. Please consider the neighbors and our concerns and vote against this proposed development. This is not a good direction for our neighborhood. This is from Ed Fleschman. It says, I own the home at 4129 Michael Lane. It is directly across the street from the proposed road and out of the proposed cul-de-sac across from Michael Lane. I'm opposed to this project as it would wash the inside of my home with light every time a car comes and goes from this proposed road. One of the attractions to this neighborhood is the quiet tone and lack of traffic with only two streets in Michael Lane and Sharon Circle. This proposed project is out of character for our neighborhood. At this time, that is all of the emails. Okay. So we've heard emails, I think we've heard from everybody that wanted to speak for our against. So at this time, I would request that we end the public comment period. We'll move forward with any questions that Planning Commission may have still for staff or for the applicant. I was going to ask the applicant, we had initially reached the agreement on 17 lots last time and I'm just wondering if you would amend the site plan review to 17 lots instead of the 19. I said, would you be willing to amend the site plan review to 17 lots instead of 19 lots? That's a yes. That's a yes. So then all we would need to do for the motion is just I would see if there's if there's any other further questions of the applicant or staff, no further questions. The applicant has stated that he is willing to amend the application from 19 to 17. Any further questions regarding that? Hearing none, I'll accept the motion. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve the site plan with staff comments for the construction of a 17 lot cluster housing development located at 750 and 754 south belt line 1400 block of McElwain splat 2021-0087. Got a motion. Can we get a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The motion is approved. Yes, correct. Yes. Thank you all for your time. Thank you. Move to other business. We actually do have a couple of items for other business this evening. First, I just want to acknowledge Miss April James who has been serving on the Planning Commission since 2015. Thank you very much for your service. Thank you. We're going to miss you because you have to rotate off, obviously, and so, but you can come back after a year if you want. But anyway, we just wanted to acknowledge your service all these years. Thank you. I've really enjoyed it. Absolutely. Thank you for your service. Thank you. I enjoyed working with you. I just wanted to also remind everybody that we do, according to the bylaws, do our officer elections in January. So if y'all just send us nominations via email, then we'll have a ballot available for chair and vice chair in January. And then also a reminder that starting in January, our meetings will be on the second Thursday of the month at 4 p.m. here, unless we have any changes. I think I did send calendar invites for those of you that are continuing to serve on the Commission. Any other business? If none, I'll accept a motion. We adjourn. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. My last motion. Second. Second. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion is adjourned. I mean, the motion is to adjourn. The meeting is adjourned. One of those. It's been a long day.