 If it's a lot of what we do, we do get it from both sides. It's still got a minute by that clock. Is somebody checking with her? Is anybody checking with her to make sure she's coming? I'd like to call the planning commission meeting for the city of Columbia June 9th, 2022 into session. Welcome to planning commission members, staff, and guests. We ask for your patience during this meeting. Multiple staff meetings are here today. Today with us is Lucinda Statler, planning administrator, Hope Hasty, the zoning administrator, Jonathan Chambers, land development administrator, and Andrea 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 administrator. 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 accessed at www.youtube.com slash user slash Columbia SC government. The public may submit letters and statements via email to the board meeting at Columbia SC.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 forward to the commission. The public may participate via phone. You may call 855-925-2801. When prompted, please enter the meeting code 2079. If you are here today to speak about a case, you must speak up when the chairperson calls for public comment. I would just like to take a quick moment to welcome our new members of planning commission. Mr. Ryan Causey and Mr. Steve Cook are here today serving and we will go ahead and call the roll. Mr. Causey. Present. Mr. Cohn. Mr. Cook. Present. Mr. Harp. Present. Ms. Hartz. Present. Ms. Thomas. Mr. Tupper. Mr. Frost. Here. We do have a quorum. Thank you. I'll give a brief meeting overview for the meeting format. Applicants with requests before the 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 planning commission or staff regarding requests. Members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns in intervals of two minutes. Applicants may have five minutes to respond. 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. Are there any changes to the agenda? We do have a couple of changes. Just moving a couple of items from the consent agenda onto the regular agenda. Under site plan review, case number 4 S plan dash 2022 dash 003 and case number 7 S plan dash 2022 dash 0010 will be heard after the consent agenda is complete. Thank you. Planning commission uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by one 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. So the cases today on the consent agenda include the approval of the May 12, 2022 minutes under future land use map amendment and zoning map amendment for pending annexations. We have case number 2 annex dash 2022 dash 0014.10 acre portion Jacobs Mill Pond Road TMS number 28900-01-19 a portion request to annex the property and assign a land use classification of urban edge residential large lot and assign zoning of plan development district at the time of annexation. The property is currently classified as neighborhood medium density and zone PDD by Richland County. Is there anyone that would like to see this item removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda? Case number 3 annex dash 2022 dash 0015 79.05 acres on the north side of Percival Road. Request to annex the property and assign a land use classification of urban edge residential small lot and urban edge community activity center and assign zoning of residential mixed district and light industrial at the time of annexation. The property is currently classified as neighborhood medium density and zone M1 by Richland County. Is there anyone present that would like to see item 3 removed from the consent agenda? Is there anyone that would like to see item 3 removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda? Seeing none. Under site plan review we'll go to case number 5. This is S plan dash 2022 dash 0008 the north side of performance parkway request site plan approval for the construction of a road at Midlands technical college enterprise campus. The property is zoned EC employment campus district. Is there anyone that would like to see case number 5 on the consent agenda moved to the regular agenda? Seeing none. Case number 6 under site plan review is S plan dash 2022 dash 0009 1429 senate street request major site plan approval for the conversion of an existing office building into a 119 unit multifamily residential building the Rutledge building. The property is zoned CAC DD within the city center design overlay district. Is there anyone present that would like to see case number 6 from the consent agenda removed and placed on the regular agenda? Seeing none. Case number 8 S plan dash 2022 dash 0011 38.2 acres ranger point court request major site plan approval for the construction of two warehouse buildings within the shop grove industrial park. The property is zoned LI light industrial district. Is there anyone present that would like to see case number 8 removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda? Seeing none. Case 9 S plan dash 2022 dash 0012 583 spares creek church road request site plan approval for the construction of a restaurant within the wood creek farms plan development. The property is zoned PD plan development. Is there anyone present that would like to see case 9 from the consent agenda removed and placed on the regular agenda? Seeing none. And case 10 on consent agenda is the zoning map amendment ZMA dash 2022 dash 0009 4921 Broad River Road request to rezone the property from residential mix district to community activity center corridor district. Is there anyone present that would like to see case 10 removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda? Seeing none. That concludes the reading of the consent agenda. Thank you. Any questions from planning commission regarding the consent agenda as read? Hearing none I'll entertain a motion. I'll make the motion that we approve the May 12th 2022 minutes and the consent agenda as it stands. Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The motion is approved. Okay so now we'll go back to case number 4 from the consent agenda which is now on the regular agenda under site plan review. This is S plan dash 2022 dash 0003 13.4 acres on Trinity Drive 1458 1482 Caroline Road request major site plan approval for the construction of a 91 duplex 182 units multifamily residential development the Trinity Town Homes. Two of the properties are currently zoned OI office and industrial. One is currently zoned RU in Richland County and is being considered for annexation with an OI office and industrial zoning classification and included was a traffic impact study. And is there any president here to speak for or against the project? We'll give a brief minute also to see if there's anybody viewing via TV. Understand there's one commission member that will need to recuse. Ryan correct. Let the record show that Ryan Causey will recuse himself from regular agenda item number four. Mr. Chair the applicant is on the line if the applicant wants to speak we will certainly hear them if they don't care to no worries. Any other folks on the line or via email? I haven't seen any emails coming. Any questions from planning commission regarding item four of the regular agenda? Hearing none I'll accept the motion. Mr. Chow making a motion to approve site plan 2022 dash 0003 motion to approve. Can I get a second? Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The motion is approved. Next case is case number seven under site plan review. This is S plan dash 2022 dash 0010 12.59 acres 2800 block of shop road extension request major site plan approval for the construction of 130,000 square foot warehouse building. The property is owned in one light industrial within Richland County but is being considered for annexation with an ally light industrial zoning classification. Any questions from planning commission regarding case number seven of the regular agenda? I need to refuse. Let the record show that Mr. Harris Cone has recused himself. Any folks present that would like to speak for or against the project? We'll take a brief moment to see if anybody remotely no caller is on the line. No emails. Hearing none I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chow making a motion to approve site plan 2022 dash 0010 Got a motion to approve. Can I get a second? Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The motion is approved. 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 will be made by planning commission. On the regular agenda today we have a couple of text amendments and the first one is a request to amend table 17 4.3 b5 of the Columbia Code of Ordinances and this is adding the accessory use of drive-through facility personal service slash retail sales and just revising the table to change the existing accessory use of drive-through facility just to specify that it's for other drive-through uses. You can see the table there where the new classification of the drive-through facility for personal service and retail sales has been added in the red text there underline and it's proposed to be a conditional use in the districts that you can see at the top and this just removes that extra level of review that's required for some of the other types of drive-through facilities that currently require a special exception for the Board of Zoning Appeals and there was one reference removed under the ATM use there was a reference there to drive-through facility so we just removed that reference to be in accordance with the change. We've heard the case. Any questions from planning commission regarding this amendment? Hearing none we've had no opposition or any concerns of the public regarding this particular case right? We haven't received any emails so far on this one. Is there anybody present that would like to speak for or against this amendment in this case? We'll give a little bit of time to wait for any callers or any emails to come in regarding case number 11. We encourage those who would like to comment via email or the web to begin sending in letters and emails. Please email to cocboardmeetingatcolumbiasc.gov or on the web at https-slash-publicinput.com slash c-o-c-p-c-dash j-u-n-2-0-2-2 For those wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live call 855-925-2801 When prompted please enter the meeting code 2079 then press star 2 to leave a voicemail or press star 3 to speak live. Please be sure your computer audio is off to avoid any feedback. If there is anyone present in the audience we will first hear from anyone in the audience who would like to speak. Seeing none we will wait to see if there's any comments on comment via telephone or email. No callers on the line. No emails. No voicemails. Any questions from planning commission? Hearing none I'll accept a motion. Mr. Chairman I'll make a motion that we approve zoning tax amendment 2002-003. Got a motion we approve. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The motion is approved. The next text amendment on the agenda is a request to amend Chapter 17 of the Columbia Code of Ordinances to eliminate or reduce requirements that require loss of parking and modify requirements related to non-conforming site features. And this amendment will facilitate the redevelopment of existing buildings that affect existing parking lots associated with a redevelopment project or reuse of a building. And some of these kind of get into a lot of detail here but you can see under it starts out with the under the transitional buffer yard applicability. So there's some added language there that exempts development that consists of the renovation or reuse of an existing structure where the buffer would require the reduction in the number of parking spaces. That's an existing parking lot. And the next change is under the street protective yard applicability. And again that's just adding that same language exempting development that consists of renovation or reuse of an existing structure where that protective yard would require the reduction in the number of parking spaces in that existing lot. And then under the vehicular surface area applicability you can see the language that's struck out there. And the some language is added to apply to expansions that are 75% or more of an existing building. And that language there that struck is the 50% renovation cost involving 50% of the taxable building value of an existing building. And so this amendment also includes section 17, 7.6 which is the non-conforming site features section. And you can see there the first modification is just removing non-conforming signs from under the non-conforming site features. And there is a separate section on non-conforming signs in the non-conforming section of the ordinance and there's also of course an entire sign ordinance that we still have. So that's just removing that one item from that section. This here the next thing is a table of required additional non-conforming site feature compliance for alterations. So that would be like renovations. And that kind of gets into a lot of detail. But it's basically increasing the threshold where non-conforming site features have to come into compliance. And then the next table there is for it applies to expansions. So any building expansions. And that also increases the threshold there to a 75% increase there to require compliance with non-conforming site features. And that's it. Unless you all have any questions, I know that's a little complicated. Thank you. Yeah, there's a lot here. It makes sense to me. Any other questions from Planning Commission or does the Planning Commission have any questions before we open it up to comment? I do have a question. Just for confirmation this is really specifically related to renovation of existing buildings. Yes. Now open it up to the public. For public comment if there's any folks present that would like to speak for or against it. If there's any folks watching via public TV. I encourage those who would like to comment via email or the web to begin sending in letters and emails. Please email to cocboardmeetingatcolumbiasc.gov or on the web at https colon slash slash publicinput.com slash cocpc dash jun2022. For those wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live please call 855 925 2801. When prompted please enter the meeting code 2079 then press star two to leave a voicemail or star three to speak live. Please be sure your computer audio is off to avoid any feedback. We will take a brief pause in the case there's any folks outside of the room here that would like to comment. Is there anyone here from the audience that would like to speak for or against this case? None present. I believe we did receive some emails. Do we want to read those into the record? We did receive a number of emails late yesterday and today. We did provide a hard copy of the exhibit to the planning commissioners and then we've gotten a couple more emails. So our materials do say that things received after 4 p.m. the day before the meeting will be read into the record. So we can certainly do that and see if we have any more calls come through. Thank you. So the first email that was received is from Jim Irvin. Says good afternoon. I understand the city is being asked to amend chapter 17 of the Columbia code of ordinances to eliminate or reduce requirements that require parking and modify requirements related to non-conforming site features. I understand these changes would do the following. One, if a transitional buffer between differing intensities of use commercial versus residential would reduce the number of parking spaces in an existing parking lot a buffer would not be required. Two, if a street protective yard would reduce the number of parking spaces in an existing parking lot then a street protective yard would not be required. Three, eliminate and trigger to bring properties into compliance with current landscaping requirements regarding parking lots. I understand the importance of parking to businesses especially small businesses but Columbia needs all the shade it can get and citizens appreciate shaded parking and green buffers. I am concerned the proposed changes would result in more unshaded and uninterrupted islands of asphalt within the city. This would undermine our efforts to improve Columbia's looks and make it cooler without landscaping if doing so resulted in the loss of a single parking space. I expect we can find a way to balance the need for parking and the need to ensure that parking looks good and complies with existing ordinances. This is my personal opinion. Thank you Jim Irvin. The next email is from Viola Henley Dear members of the Columbia Planning Commission, I'm writing an opposition to the request to amend chapter 17-15.3 and 7.6 of the Columbia Code of Ordinances I respectfully ask you to consider the following when making your decision quote, trees enhance community economic stability by attracting businesses and tourists. People linger and shop longer along tree line streets, apartments and offices in wooded areas rent more quickly have higher occupancy rates and tenants stay longer from the South Carolina Forestry Commission. Columbia's main street is a successful example of how trees enhance quality of life and support thriving businesses. Shade trees lower ambient ground temperature and filter air pollutants. As a result we are all happier and healthier. The National Tree Calculator provides free estimates of tree benefits in terms of carbon dioxide, air pollution, stormwater impacts and energy savings now in 99 years into the future. She provided a web address design.itreetools.org quote, landscaping especially with trees can increase property values by as much as 20% end quote from the management information services ICMA. Columbia's small business owners who retrofit property benefit by installing aesthetically pleasing landscaping. They save money and energy costs and increase their property values. They build their customer base as well. People value aesthetically pleasing areas and are more likely to choose to live, work and shop where buildings and streets have attractive landscapes. Continuity in business signage is a tenant of modern urban design. Removing sign requirements for businesses will set into motion a mismatch of size and design degrading our city's appearance. I believe Columbia benefits from thoughtful urban planning and ordinances that are designed to provide its citizens an attractive, cleaner, healthier and productive city in which to live, work and play. Thank you for your consideration sincerely. Viola Henley. The next email is from Jack McKenzie. Dear members of the City of Columbia Planning Commission, I'm writing an opposition to the request to amend Chapter 17 of the Columbia Code of Ordinances to eliminate requirements that require loss of parking and modify requirements related to non-conforming site. Eliminating trees and the requirements for trees in a very moderate landscape ordinance is not going to improve Columbia but lessen it. Trees and vegetation help immensely with stormwater runoff and thus water quality. Trees and vegetation help clean the air and thus improve community health. They provide habitat and increase beauty. Moreover, they lower the temperatures of the surrounding areas. Without increasing vegetation our city gets worse, not better. A quick Google search of transitional buffer yards shows that our ordinance is not the exception but the norm in cities across the United States. The buffers are there to protect private property, not infringe upon it. These buffers are placed to prevent or lessen the harm done to an adjoining landowner by commercial development. In the process and in the long run they help all involved including the commercial developer. The street protective yard is oftentimes the only way to install street trees given the number of DOT roads that we have in Columbia. Without street trees you have more stormwater runoff, hotter temperatures, more ugliness and the like. Street trees are invaluable for economic development and as shown below also help commercial developers by raising the value of their properties. A few quick and hopefully uncontroversial facts that support not eliminating these requirements as they benefit both the commercial developer, the adjoining landowners and the community in general. Many revitalization experts agree that investing in improving the appearance of additional commercial areas is one of the best ways to attract new business and stimulate economic development. Beauty benefits business from Scenic America www.scenic.org Landscaping especially with trees can increase property values by as much as 20% from the management information services ICMA. Healthy mature trees add an average of 10% to a property's value from the USDA Forest Service. Trees enhance community economic stability by attracting businesses and tourists. People linger and shop longer along tree lined streets, apartments and offices and wooded areas rent more quickly, have higher occupancy rates and tenants stay longer from the South Carolina Forestry Commission. Trees can be a stimulus to economic development attracting new business and tourism. Commercial retail areas are more attractive to shoppers, apartments rent more quickly, tenants stay longer and space in a wooded setting is more valuable to sell or rent from the Arbor Day Foundation. Landscape amenities represent an effective way to boost the occupancy rate of apartments and other commercial buildings. People enjoy aesthetically pleasing areas and are much more likely to choose to live and work in buildings with attractive landscapes. So there is a high correlation between nice landscaping and high occupancy rates of buildings. It therefore becomes more economically feasible to invest money in landscaping because the return in the number of tenants and the amount of rent money far exceeds the cost of installing ornamental plants. Owners of buildings should seriously consider landscaping as a means to attract new business with new tenants. The Danter Company in 1993 ranked 2003 Wolf from 1998. Trees properly placed around buildings can reduce air conditioning needs by 30% and can save 20 to 50% in energy used for heating in the USDA Forest Service. And the net cooling effect of a young healthy tree is equivalent to 10 room size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. If developers are being hurt financially because of these requirements then let's figure out how as a community we can lessen the pain. One, I have been told many times that Columbia has more trees than it has spaces to put them. Why can't the city fund the barrier, the protective yard? Two, these areas have an enormous impact on stormwater runoff. Why can't we push forward a slug of stormwater funding to the developer to help fund these areas? Three, if a developer shows that these barriers or protective yard costs them x, why can't we work to give a tax deduction or credit for that cost? And four, the city has a tree fund, why not partially fund these barriers and protect yards with some of this money? We presently have some real talent on City Council, some extremely successful men and women who are giving their time to public service and we not get those intelligent heads together and figure out how to create a win-win. The elimination in my humble opinion does the opposite. It creates a lose-lose. I'm 100% for economic development in Columbia and I admire the men and women who lay it on the line to create jobs and businesses here in Columbia. No one wants to hurt or discourage them. All that we want is for our community to be healthier, cleaner and more attractive as we grow. In the end cleaner, healthier and more attractive city means more money for commercial developers as well. That's what basic planning does and what it needs to keep doing. Eliminating it will have the opposite effect. I appreciate your consideration. Sincerely yours, John F. Jack McKenzie. The next email is from Seanan Bobberts. Good morning. I disagree with suggested changes to the ordinance listed in item 12. Columbia is hot and can be a bit of a concrete jungle. Eliminating the requirements for certain beautification requirements is not helpful for moving Columbia in the right direction. Landscaping is good for economic development because it makes businesses more attractive and the delusion of these requirements will negatively impact the city as a whole in livability, attractiveness and help contribute to the urban heat island effect which will increase extreme heat and decrease productivity. Outdoor workers cannot work above certain temps per OSHA, etc. Please vote against this change. Thanks. The next email is from Jennifer Glass. Good afternoon, members. It says DDRC, but she meant Planning Commission. I'm writing to express my concern for the changes being proposed today to the landscape requirements. Reducing the considerations for nature vegetation goes against any concerns for green space in existing landscapes. Changing this ordinance as it is worded is literally paving the way towards more parking lots and clear cutting. We do not need regress on what few protections and requirements we have for existing established trees. There were two emails that were received after the exhibit was compiled. This is from Mike Ealy. Good afternoon. I'm writing to request a no vote on agenda item 12, text amendment 2022-0004. Elimination or reduction of a buffer area at the expense of saving parking spaces is short-sighted in poor city planning. The City of Columbia needs natural buffers to reduce the negative impacts of storm water runoff as fully evidenced by the thunderstorm a few weeks ago when five-points businesses had two feet of water outside their doors. Provide safe zone buffers for people navigating lots and surrounding properties and to provide a robust tree canopy to mitigate heat islands in our famously hot city. In addition, these buffers improve quality, reduce noise and glare, and enhance the natural beauty of our city. Developers should continue to find alternate areas for parking and follow existing development standards for parking and buffers in order to make Columbia great for all citizens. The changes in table 17-7.6b and table 17-7.6c are not helping the citizens of Columbia to a better quality of life. Please leave the standards as currently written. Please vote no today on agenda item 12. TA-2022-0004. Thanks, Mike Ealy. And the last email that I have at this point is from Karen Radigan, to whom it may concern. After reviewing the Planning Commission agenda for the June 9, 2022 meeting I wanted to register a concern about item 12. TA-2022-0004. Item 12 is to severely curtail or eliminate landscaping requirements. Landscaping and curb appeal is integral to the overall attractiveness of a business or economic district. No one wants to visit a group of stores or restaurants surrounded by asphalt and no greenery. Frankly, a lack of landscaping makes an area look hot and unappealing. This agenda item is especially disturbing given the numerous news articles written recently about the issue of heat islands in Columbia. Please take these concerned into consideration when discussing item 12. Karen Radigan. Thank you. Have there been any other emails that have come in since reading those? I don't see any at this time. Any callers on the line? Andrew? Does the applicant care to, does the city staff care to say anything in regards to the emails? Well, so these changes would not apply to new development in general. So like you asked before, this is proposed to facilitate the redevelopment reuse of existing sites and existing buildings. So it's not like we're proposing to get rid of the landscape ordinance or anything like that. Everything will still require buffer yards and street protective yards for new developments. This is just to facilitate some of these smaller sites with the, you know, not enough parking where there's not enough parking and the added landscaping might kind of make that, you know, remove some of the available parking when it's already at, when they're already short on parking for reuse of a building. So that's what these amendments are for. Understood. And if I read it correctly, if somebody were to renovate a building and expand it, over a certain percent of that expansion will trigger the new ordinance. Yes. All right. Any questions from planning commission? Based on what you've heard. No questions? I will entertain a motion. I'll make the motion that we approve zoning text amendment TA-2022-004. 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. The ayes have it. The motion's approved. Move on to other business. Is there any other business? No other business. We'll move to an adjourn. Can I get a motion to adjourn? Move. Got a motion. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor. Signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Motion's approved. The meeting's adjourned.