 Welcome everyone to the September 1st 2022 City of Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals. I am John Gregory, vice chair for the board and will be serving as chair for today's meeting. At this time I would like to introduce the other members of the board. Got Marcellus Promise to our right, Celia McIntosh to my right, John Guignard to my left, Catherine Finner to the left of him, and Sherar Duvall to the left of her. I would also like to introduce the staff that assists the board. Hope Hasty, zoning administrator, Erica Jean, deputy zoning administrator, and Skye Robinson Barnes. The board is charged with hearing applications for special exceptions, variances, and administrative appeals. All testimony is recorded for the record and anyone wishing to speak will need to be sworn in and come to the podium to speak. No testimony can be taken from the gallery. When the 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 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 by a spokesperson for an established body or group of three or more. The applicant then has five minutes for a rebuttal. 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. So if you if if you are here as an applicant or here to speak in any case, please stand at this time and raise your right hand. You affirm or attest that the testimony you will give today is the truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. At this time, I will turn the meeting over to the staff. Good afternoon. First thing I want to announce today is that the item on the regular agenda 2022 dash 0027 SE, especially exception for a daycare at 2312 Liberty Street has been withdrawn by the applicant. First item on the consent agenda is the approval of the August 4th 2022 meeting minutes. And the next item is 2022 dash 0029 V 1628 Browning Road. This is a variance request to the required front yard setback. Would anyone like to have a case this case removed from the consent agenda? I see none. If no one requests an item to be removed, chair asked for well, I'm sorry. Do we have a motion? I move that we approve the consent agenda subject to staff comments. Second. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motions approved. Moving on to the regular agenda. We've got one item it's 2022 dash 0030 V 5618 North Main Street. It's a variance request to the minimum form and design standards for a commercial kitchen use. And this is a new section of our ordinance. So I have provided that in the presentation for reference. There we go. And the applicant is here to present their case. Okay, great. Should I ask the applicant to come up? All right, Marshall. What we are looking for is a variance from the zoning requirement for 40% glazing on all street frontages. And we feel like this building qualifies as an exception on a couple of grounds. One, it's an incredibly small and tight site that we're only doing a 1000 square foot building. It has two because it's on the corner. It has two street frontages. The function of the building is a commercial kitchen, which really doesn't lend itself. Basically having 40% glazing on each side. So we're Dale, can you step closer? Not picking me up. All right, we are a we're looking for the variance from the 40% glazing requirement on North Main Street and on the side street. And again, the hardship is the sides of the building, the nature of the side and the nature of the use and the fact that it's a commercial kitchen not lending itself to that. We have put about 19% glazing on North Main and we have put a significant amount of glazing into the one public entrance to the building. But the other functions on the building are there are two commercial kitchens for Miss Jones and just doesn't lend itself to have walls of windows. I mean, it would end up being there would have to be some sort of fake fenestration in order to pull it off just based on the requirements and the side street elevation is only 20 feet wide. And again, it's a hood and other functions. They're just not really a practical way to get that amount of glazing. I'm gonna let Miss Jones tell you a little bit about what she's planning to do with the business and you know, the function. Hey, welcome. I'm Karina Jones. I am a new small business owner here in Columbia. I have a food truck that I just started this year. And so all food trucks have to be attached to a commercial kitchen. And so I purchased this property with the intent to open up a commercial kitchen for my use as well as other food truck owners in the in the area and you know, just kind of piggybacking off of Dale, you know that the use of this building will just be for a commercial kitchen. It will have two full kitchens, one in the front and one in the back. And there will be a lot of equipment. There will be a you know, other food truck owners that will be coming in and just using it for that use to just prepare their food for their food trucks. Any questions? I'm happy to answer them. Yeah, I have a question. Just before you purchased the property, just do you know what the prior use was or what the history of that lot was? Just can you explain that? Yeah, there was a restaurant building that had been abandoned on the side. You're seeing it on the screen now. It I think it was tore down before you closed. Well, I purchased it and then I demolished it. Demolished it. It was in unrepairable structural condition, I guess, would be the best way to describe it. But we feel like, you know, we certainly have more glazing than the building was replacing. We've tried to, you know, push the building more into the corner and recognize the street more than the building is replacing, tried to reorganize the parking again, more into an internal parking. So it feels like it's a an enhancement over the building that was there. But again, the building that was there, I didn't get into it before it was torn down, but it was structurally unsound. Did you consider marrying the building to put more of the entrance on the corner? Part of it because of the sides of the site, the fact that we have the draw, you know, we're trying to get a loop drive off North Main and the only because of the width of the frontage on North Main, the only place you can have the drive coming in is on the far right edge of the side. If you're going to have one, and we were trying to address, you know, the sidewalk and the drive coming. There are no sidewalks on the side street, but the traffic coming in is more off of North Main. I mean, it's not an impossibility, but it was pushed up against like one foot eight off the property line on the side street. So we would not really have significant area if you came out the door. And when we can't, we can't not push it that much up and maintain a drive with based on the narrowness of the property. So the goal was to try to take advantage of the width that the drive is taking to also use that as a way to funnel people up because the other side, the side that's on the corner is going to be right there and there's no sidewalk on the side street. So that was why we oriented the way we oriented it. I guess I was thinking more of just the building, not necessarily the drive as well. But if we if we mirror it, we keep the drive, then you're, you're pushing all the traffic, you know, all the way to the other side. That's why we didn't. It's not an impossibility, but it definitely does. Doesn't lend itself. It's tight. If you look at the corner, it's just tight. Regarding the building, regarding the building materials itself, what are what are you looking at here? We're seeing a semititious semititious or baton siding painted. I have a question. I think maybe more for staff and that is when I'm reading about the nonconforming use of neighboring lands and structures in the same zoning district. Mr. Marshall has presented us with an awful lot of similar looking structures. Are those structures nonconforming or they're not subject to it because they're not their houses. So they're not subject to the UDO. So are you referencing these pictures that were provided? Yeah, so yeah, they would be just I guess you could say grandfathered in or nonconforming because I mean, this is a section of the code that was added in with the new UDO in August of 21. So their residences, are they or not? They're mixed. Some of them are being used as you can see little signage. Some of them relate. So regardless of the use under the new UDO, they would have to have adequate more fenestration than they actually have. It appears at the time. Well, what we're referring to and now with this case is for commercial buildings and multifamily. Okay, so the single family house would not be nonconforming because it didn't have a whole wall windows. Right. And also, if you if you took an existing building and simply changed issues, you wouldn't trip the learning requirement. It only be if you did a project that was greater than 25% of the building or something like that before you trip into the What kind of equipment and I'm looking at the floor plan here provided. I guess you've got a bathroom right there between the two windows. There's a hood in each of the kitchens. They're showing a three compartment sink on the front under the window and each of the two kitchens. There would be equipment under the hood, which is the the element on the bottom left corner of each kitchen screen orientation. So there would be ovens and potentially fryers, different things under the hood. And then you know, there will be a refrigerator that's not shown that will probably be sitting basically behind the door or to the side of the door. And there's there's it's a small building. So I mean, it's going to get packed full of equipment. But some of it some of the equipment she hasn't purchased yet is the idea to I mean with two kitchens like this, you do have the common passageway. But is the idea to have potentially two different operators there? Do you need the two different kitchen or tell me a little bit about that? Her goal is to be able to have to lease out the top kitchen, at least in terms of screen orientation would be her kitchen. And that would be just for the support of her food truck. Kitchen number one, which is kitchen number one kitchen number two, the goal is to be able to lease it out for a day and potentially have four or five different people in there on different days. Yeah, the way DHEC works, you simply have to do all of your prep work. Each food truck has to have an anchored kitchen that's you know, DHEC approved. And you have to do all your prep work and packaging in that DHEC approved kitchen. So someone would be able to come in, prep their stuff, then put it in their own cooler and use it for there and then some you could potentially even have two different people in a day coming in, they just can't be in there at the same time. But it's it's a it's a real need. We did one of these about decade and a half ago for David Roberts on Maine right where it turns into North Maine and same thing. I mean, they constantly had people that that come in and use it because and some people tie in with a restaurant and do that. But you've got to have a you know, even if you're a vendor that's selling stuff that once you get a certain volume, even if it's not a food truck, once you just hit a certain volume DHEC requires you to do all the prep and a certified kitchen. Yeah. Now I'm not an architect. So I don't know. But I'm there's no way to kind of put fake window, you know, just I mean, of course, there's a way to put fake windows. There. The challenge is, is they mean, and their examples of them around town. I know they're ugly. They're never going to convince anybody they're real, because there's no light coming in from behind them. And it it frankly, in the scale of the building becomes a little at least from an architectural standpoint, I thought, you know, from the scale of the building, it becomes not help not really helping the overall design. But if for some reason, you all can't see your way to an exception, that probably would be our recourse is that we will, you know, we will make something up. But I don't think it helps. I think you're if you're looking at it from a standpoint of what's the best solution for the neighborhood and what's the best feel. And I do think that because of the scale of the site, the function of the building, and the surrounding community character, I think there's reasonable grounds for y'all to find a hardship or exception to the black letter law of the ordinance. And I think that's what that's what y'all are available for is to be able to make those kind of interpretations. And I don't think that you're setting a precedent. If you do it for this building of saying every other building in a new zoning would do it. So I mean, I think it's a legitimate request for a variance. Yeah, the only thing I stumble on because I'm I'm a lawyer, not an architect is the the more about the non conforming use doesn't doesn't qualify you. But I certainly can see that when you go down the list. Otherwise, it does seem like a reasonable reasonable request. I mean, it seems like it's a worthy business. It seems like it's going to add an awful lot to the neighborhood and overall value. And it doesn't seem like as you're saying, no, that we are not the DDRC. And I understand that it doesn't. It does seem like it would, in fact, be more in keeping with what's around it than if it were a series of plate glass windows. I've got a question for staff. Should I ask it now? Just want to understand the intent of the change the the for commercial kitchen use in the one district. With the requirement being 40%. I mean, this is more this is pretty much exclusively a commercial kitchen. Was that change meant for like restaurants where they had more in like more dining plus the commercial kitchen where it'd be easier to have this the general the change in the code to add the form and design standards. Yeah, it applies to all commercial uses. Okay. Not okay. Right. I mean, I can see that if you were talking about, I don't know, a restaurant, a convenience store or something like that, having lots of glass would be nice. You want that. Yeah. I mean, if you Yeah, well, this one for board discussion, but I guess I'm just still hung up on like, if you think about what the building might be after it's yours, you know, hopefully you're there forever and ever. And you do really well. But it's just that it seems like the building is turning its back on that potential corner and the long term sort of development. I know that's not a, you know, the most beautiful walkable neighborhood now. But you know, I mean, that's the goal of overall with Main Street. Yeah, similar comments. Did anyone ask if you may have asked it with the mirroring question? I understand the the windows on the on the, is it the Oakland Avenue side? Did you did you try to put windows on that side too? The current layout, there's basically a hood that backs up to half of the Oakland Avenue side. So it's not really pragmatic to have a window over it. I mean, the challenge for us is even if even if we were to mirror the building, even if we were to mirror the building and what's now the driveway side with the Oakland Avenue side, we're still not anywhere near 40%. We're more, I mean, the front has four individual windows and a door and it's at 19%. So it's only it. We're only halfway there. The right side would be somewhere in that approximate 19% range too. So we're we're not at a we're not at a threshold where just mirroring it solves, you know, it doesn't get us to 40% glazing. With dormers. I'm just trying to think of ways to get dormers and gable windows, I suppose. Yeah, really, if you look at the order, if you look at the ordinance, I believe it measures from the cornice line and achieves its wall area based on the below the cornice line and the glass below that. So you're not the dormers won't even get you there. The first glazing standard. First floor. I mean, I think the risk of moving into board discussion. But I think the idea is that it's putting eyes on the street and like activating the street. You know, if you can't see what's happening in the building, you don't know what's happening in the building and vice versa. So I mean, that's kind of the point of a commercial kitchen, right? I mean, I mean, it is kind of getting in the board discussion now. Yeah, I think we're appreciate y'all coming out. Yeah, any more questions? Okay, good. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. All right, at this time, we'll move into board discussion and sure. Yeah, this reminds me a lot of the commercial kitchens we already see for food checks that are already in Columbia, specifically thinking about dirt kitchen, which is on Main Street, which finished station is almost because the point isn't really to attract, not even really to attract kitchen because the building is like this for a specific purpose, kind of like a more industrial use. It's just kitchens for the flip side of that being is now that Vino garage occupies has really activated the street. Right? Yeah, well, that's true. But the original, I mean, that but that's just one of the that's just one of the commercial kitchens that's in the same vein. I mean, there's another one, not even not even that far away from that location, that kind of such a same purpose. And it's really low fenestration on those to me, it seems more of a suitable for more of an industrial type use like this. And the outside, I honestly think they've done a good job of the design actually lending itself to look like it would fit in a neighborhood because usually when you see commercial kitchens like this, it's just a box. And so I think that the fact that they thought about it looking similar to what a house would look like in a small neighborhood like this with a lot of small structures like that, I think Yeah, the overall character is nice. I mean, I hear what you're saying, Celia, because I mean, I'm learning a whole lot about planning principles in another context. But the idea that that, you know, we want eyes on the street and all that in, you know, animation on all those things are wonderful things. That said, we're so far away from getting there at that place. And to the extent there are houses that nearby that are in fact houses, which do provide some eyes on the street. And this looks like one of those houses. What I hate the idea is those fake windows. I just hate fake windows. I think that's the worst choice. And yet that would be what they could do, which would check all the boxes, but actually be a less appealing structure in the long run and less blending in with what's there as you point out. So I'm inclined to go with it. And I think I can see where, you know, I think I think I can go down the variance criteria and make it feel comfortable. I mean, the extraordinary and exceptional conditions are the fact that this is going to be a commercial kitchen and not. And it's on a small piece of property, which is large enough for the use it's intended. I think that's good. Doesn't generally apply to other properties in the vicinity because they are doing their own thing and they either have windows or they don't have windows or whatever. I suppose to some extent they are the result of the applicants actions in designing the building. But that's why they're coming to ask for some relief. So that's sort of a circular thing. I think it does unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property in an attractive way, which feels sort of DDRC ish again. But the fake window problem of, yeah, I suppose you could put fake windows there. But I mean, the argument that you're losing floor space, if you have to step it back to illuminate the fake windows. Certainly no, I don't see any detriment to the adjacent property of the public good. You know, I think it's probably the minimum variance they tried. They put some windows in. And I think it's I think it's in harmony with the general purpose. I mean, the fact it's certainly not going to be injurious to the neighborhood. I mean, I haven't seen or heard anyone protesting here that is in any way injurious. Yeah, I like it. I just wonder if we're setting ourselves up. I mean, this is the first time we've come before a case like this. We set ourselves up for other cases to sort of ask for this. I mean, this will be an exception. It's a precedent. That's right. Well, I'm no good. It's a variance. It's a variance. And we look at each one individually. If somebody else wants to come in with a commercial kitchen under exactly the same circumstances, I suppose I wouldn't even have a trouble saying okay, fine for you too. But depending on the properties around it. Exactly. Exactly. This is an exception for this. But I like the fact that the rhythm matches the rhythm to some extent of the properties around it. Yeah, I mean, my only concern with that is the fact that if the intent of the ordinances to get away from that rhythm, but we're allowing variance to continue the rhythm, then we're not upholding the ordinance. But I think, you know, you bring up a good point with the dirt kitchen like if we're trying to make the area nicer and build it up that even though that thing has almost no windows, maybe none that I'm aware of, it still doesn't look bad. It's, you know, so because it's such a small building, that's their extraordinary and exceptional condition that allows potential for a variance. Yeah, it's a small lot. Right. Small lot, small building, where you got to place the hoods. Small lot, small building specific use takes up a lot of wall space. I think that the proposed landscaping is going to on Oakwood Street. It's going it's going to also make it a much more attractive site than it's been for sure. Absolutely. And then any likely use is going to be. Alright, do we have any more discussion? Sounds like we're someone will make a motion. Or wait, do we have to ask for public input or? Yes. Okay. Do we have any emails? Yeah, do we have any callers emails? Any public input? No. Okay, good. Alright, gotta be in person. Just here. Alright, perfect. We did not receive any calls on this case. Okay, good. Anyone want to make a motion? See if I can try this. I make a motion to accept the requested variance to the minimum form and design standards for a commercial kitchen use in the Mu one district or case number two zero two two two zero zero three zero V. Second. Or do we? Well, do we want to make that subject to staff comments? Yes. Subject yourself. I have to restate that subject to staff comments. Second. We have a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any against? No. One. Okay. Alright, well case approved. Thank y'all. That's all we have on the agenda today. That's all we have. Okay. As there is no other business. Do we have a motion to adjourn? Move to adjourn. Second. Second. Alright, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Alright, meeting adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.