 But if, and indeed, if enough of it is sold to commercial uses, there will be no room for apartments. But you're not expecting that. Not expecting that. The market has not suggested that as a possibility. So just to clarify, I think the applicant's intent is for the multifamily to mostly go in the commercial, but the way that the amendment is worded, it's also allowing single family to go in the commercial and transitional. And it's clarifying the transitional, pretty much always allowed the multifamily. But the way that it was worded, it had to have commercial on the ground level. And that was the same in the commercial, too. It gives them the option to not have to have that ground floor activity. But you can just have regular multi. But there's no increase in the number of units, again, correct? So it's just allowing them to expand out of that yellow. And that did address the primary question that most people had for it, was, is it going to be a huge difference? Right. Are you doubling the number of units and you're not? The same number of units? It's already been approved. I understand. Because for it to remain a PUD, it has to remain the mix. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Are there any guests that would like to speak? Can you please come to the dais and state your name clearly? I wasn't planning on speaking. But a big question I have once they're saying it. I have lived in this area where Burnside Farm is since 1965. So I've seen this grow from just a little bit of traffic to we're starting to be like in Irmo. What kind of traffic are we going to bring in? With the multi, what, family apartments and stuff? Have they taken into consideration of that? Because I'm having trouble reading this, but it looks like anywhere it goes. The traffic already is starting to look like harvesting in Irmo, just in that area. So how much more traffic is that going to bring in? And also, in that area of Gardner's Ferry, there's a lot of gunshots that goes off. We're near Walmart, not too far away where we've had several shootings. A lot of the apartments near us, there are shootings. So we're a little bit worried about the safety of bringing more apartments and what's the quality it's going to do to our neighborhood. Because when we moved in there, when it was being developed in 2005, they told us it was going to be like boutique type little malls, strip malls and everything. That's what they were going to do. So far, we've had four commercial things. A tractor store, a car wash, and Walmart and CBS. So they're changing us mid-gain. And we're all worried about our property values and our safeties. Thank you. And please state your name clearly. Rebecca Hyatt. I'm a resident of the Burnside Farms Development in the single-family residential area. I don't know if you all know the answer to this, but the apartments behind the single-family residential area are what have drawn most of the crime in our neighborhood. We have, on average, a car break in every other week from that area. And so the fact that there are more apartments going in is concerning, even though these aren't necessarily subsidized. I don't know if the ones behind us are subsidized. But I can tell you that there's a very thin layer of trees that separates us. And so one concern that we have is all of any influx of crime from people that are living in any apartments coming into our neighborhood. I don't know if this is the right time to suggest, but maybe putting up a fence around the single-family residential area to try to block off some of that influx. Thank you. Andrea Toronto. I am a resident of Burnside Farm as well. And my backyard would border what appears to be the transitional area. And I definitely do not want apartments looking down over me into my backyard considering we've already had multitude to echo what has already been said of crime break-ins and burglaries from apartments just right over. Secondly, when I bought my property, nothing has happened that what was promised in terms of not only just homeowners association rules and restrictions, very vague covenants. So I really am not in favor of having additional apartments in where we thought was going to be retail. So we're again concerned about the property value and the quality that it's going to bring in when we're already having significant issues. Thank you. Thank you. Charles Siegler. The woods they speak of, behind the apartments, behind the wood line there. I live, me and my wife, we live right there. And I've had several people come to my backyard. They broke into my buddy's truck when he was evacuating the hurricane. We're right there. So I see the kids walking back and through. They go through the neighborhood and one time they're coming back through and they saw me and see the CPI guy, we got security. And they hauled us to, excuse me, they ran through the woods. And when they saw me, they changed directions. That's like, they were saying it's a lot of crime going on. And I'm watching them walk through my backyard. And maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the man back there was saying that the commercial areas and we got other businesses that aren't doing as well, because whatever reason. But like the lady said a while ago that there's so much traffic on Garner's Ferry. So what is more apartments going to do to businesses that are already there? I don't see all that adding more people is going to help anything as far as business wise, especially if it's multi-family houses and nothing against anything like that. I come from a trailer park in Aiken. But I just know it's the quality of people isn't going to, you know what I mean? The more people isn't going to change the fact of any businesses that are going on. And crime is going to get worse. You know, we see it and it's not our neighborhood, it's the adjacent one. And we're all scared that more people bringing and coming in multi-family houses are going to make it worse. Thank you. Jason Weaver at Living Burnside Farms too. My concern is active duty military personnel. We get PCS every three years. So you're transitioning and buying houses every location you go pretty much or you find a good area where you can rent. This is a convenient location to base. Bringing in the single-family homes is very attractive military families. But also the thing that attracted us is what we were sold on and what we were promised, what we were guaranteed, which is home values are projected to increase and go up just since the second stage of development, which we purchased on. The housing prices had gone up 10, almost $15,000 from the initial purchase price six to eight months earlier. And they were projecting that to continue. There's nothing mentioned when we talk to the Homeowners Association or when we talk to the actual builder, which in our case is Essex Homes. Anything to do with multi-family properties ever being developed or even ever being zoned for that. There's nothing made available to present that. Like we said, we're up in the corner here of the yellow, the multi-family residential area. And the orange would be the transitional, which is what I'm saying. What I'm hearing is the proposed area for multi-family. Again, it's about the quality and the caliber of people that you're going to bring in. You buy a home, you're making an investment. And you're looking for a return on that investment. And you're also just looking for people to carry through with the promises that you were given, like the lady said here. We were told there was going to be high end retail stuff. It wasn't going to be multi-family dwellings. It was going to be a nice strip mall that was going to bring in the right kind of people, the right kind of folks, and the right kind of traffic and what you would want for property value. And basically amenities that were going to be, I don't know, useful to all the people that are in the neighborhood. What we've had so far is we've had zero development of what we were promised. We're paying homeowner association dues, which I can't tell you what in the world for, because I've seen zero improvement. I tried to build a shed in my backyard, and they can't even tell me what the, it got disapproved because they said it has to be the same specs in the same class because it's a custom built development. No one can provide me the guidelines for what we have to do. Your time is up. Got you. But thank you though. Appreciate it. Just to clarify, multi-family has always been permitted in transitional and commercial. It just had to be over businesses and ground for activities. So this is just, it's still allowing the multi-family a complete change. It was always in the original document. It sounds like that's a misunderstanding that several people have, but the current zoning allows for multi-family, and it has since the development of the property and since the zoning was approved in 2005. So I do, it sounds like maybe they were, I mean, I'll call it miscommunication, but it sounds like when some of y'all purchased that property that that wasn't clear. But just to clarify, under the current plan, which is in place, there is multi-family allowed, and they can do it up to a certain number, and that number's already been approved. And what they're asking for now is an expansion of where they can build that multi-family, but they are not asking for more multi-family. They are allowed multi-family as it is. I don't know if that clarifies for you, but I just, it sounds like one of the questions is that is being asked is can we deny them the ability to build multi-family, and we can't. That's already in place. So the question here is, will they be allowed to build it in some ways further away from the single family is my sense of looking at the map, right, that it would be in the red zone potentially as opposed to where it is now allowed, which is the orange zone, which is right next to the single family. Correct. The original location of the multi-family was to be in the darker yellow areas. Those became single family. It was always allowed in transitional, but it just had to be over a commercial type business. Now it's allowing it to just go in there without the commercial component, and also in the red area. So it does allow it to go potentially further away. It's no longer directly bordering a single family. It potentially is no longer directly bordering single family if this change is allowed. But just to reiterate, because it sounds like there's some confusion, they are currently allowed to build multi-family on that property. There's nothing we can do to change that. We're not here to address whether they can build multi-family. It's just where. Is that correct? Are there any other discussion? If not, can I have a motion? Oh, is there any other? Okay. Until I speak. Mr. Chairman, just to address a couple of things. The issues of traffic that have been raised, there will not be any greater amount of traffic on the property with the approval of the amendment, because the number of units has already been provided for as you have noted. This was an unusual commitment in the first place in that the major portion of the infrastructure, the traffic infrastructure, was built before the residential was built. So the infrastructure for traffic control took into account at the time of the development of Burnside Farm that there would be 600 units of multi-family, 600 units of residential, and the commercial qualifying properties on the property. And that was part of the traffic inventory made at that time. There's clearly more traffic now than there was in 2005, but that is not a feature that would be a result of the approval of this amendment. It's already been a part of the project, and supposedly it has been accounted for in the development of the infrastructure. We can address the property concern over the difference in equity-owned and rental properties and the issue of subsidization of them and market rate. The developer of the planned unit development will control what goes into the contract that establishes the multi-family development and has already pledged to the council and to the homeowners that they will assure that there's not going to be subsidized housing but market rate apartment development. There is always, would have always been, as the zoning administrator has indicated to you, some development in the transitional areas, some over and above business that the character of the overall project has remained essentially the same, except the location within the overall footprint is being defined to meet more current market conditions that existed in 2005. Crime and break-ins and those sorts of things that are complained of certainly need to be addressed and to the, this is in the city of Columbia and the police department and the law enforcement and safety concerns of the city are applicable to this property as they should be to any and all others and the importation of more people will also emphasize the necessity for more control in those areas and should provide some modicum of additional safety in and of itself. It does border woodland places. It borders other developed properties that we certainly cannot control but simply the addition of the already accounted for number of apartment units on the site would not be expected to result in difficulties that are unusual to or would be different or unique to this locality. It's not perfect but it is what it is. With respect to the amenities that have been promised and not delivered, I think we have been able to bring together the residential homeowner development company, its management company and the homeowner's representatives to begin to understand better where they're coming from in those situations and I am given to understand there is some productive work going on towards ameliorating the circumstances that have caused friction or communication differences in the past. Hopefully those will improve. The HUD developer can help assist in that going forward but does not have anything to do with the enforcement of the declarations of covenants and restrictions for the individual home communities within the development. Those provisions are in their documents and result between interaction between the managing committee, the construction developer and the residents. But we think we would be in position to be an assistance rather than a difficulty in helping get those arranged. Do you have any and I may be in there and I miss it but plan for buffers, was there an original plan for buffers between these levels of development? Landscaping buffers. There are buffering provisions that exist between commercial properties and residential properties so if these are built on commercial properties there would be some buffering requirements that take place. I'm sorry, I can't tell you exactly what they are as we speak this afternoon but there is some separation difference between the characters of development that are generally a company, a mixed use development. I wonder if that would be reassuring to hear that there would be landscaping buffers that would be built between the single family and this potential new multi-family construction that would happen in the commercial zone. I guess I will ask staff, is that noted in the PUD? The PUD document notes that it should comply to the City of Columbia standards. Okay, but I guess my question is if they build multi-family there will that requirement? If they build multi-family in the commercial zone will there still be a requirement? So the way our landscaping ordinances it's based on use not like zones so if you have multi-family next to commercial there's a certain type of buffer and if you have multi-family next to single family you have a certain type of buffer so it's all about the use as it's divided so even though it's the commercial zone if they put single-family residential over there or multi-family they have to start to meet those buffer requirements based on the use that's placed there not what that diagram shows so to speak. That's what I was asking so. All of those parameters are basically in force within the PUD. And if there's a rearrangement we would certainly expect to have to do that. I have a question for staff if they're with future development whether it be commercial or multi-family would those we have site plans for those specific developments within the PUD coming back to planning commission or is all of that previously within? So if it was multi-family so the way the city ordinance works if site plans come to the city of planning commission if it's five or more units so if they built a four-unit apartment building it would not come back to you but if they did five a five-unit building or more then it would come back to multiple units all at once it would come back to planning commission for that site plan review from a multi-family perspective. And would that include a landscape plan with buffers? Yes the site plan always includes this landscaping. So that is something that the neighborhood could address at that time as well correct? Correct site plans aren't hosted so that like for this rezoning they saw lots of signs out there but they would need to do is if they wanted to stay abreast of the topics they could subscribe to our email list that we send out every month about the agenda and they could have an email about the planning commission sent right to them and if they stopped off this evening and gave me their information I could get them on that list tomorrow morning otherwise they can check our website on a monthly basis and follow from that perspective. Because I in my mind again I'll just say there's no change in the number of multi-family units so that's not on the agenda here but what you might be able to is the neighborhood address is some of the landscaping and the buffers between what is now multi-family and what could potentially be I mean what is now single family and could potentially be multi-family that's what you might have some control over as neighbors. Right site site plan is a technical review so if somebody did comma wanted to speak on a site plan issue and it was multi-family they didn't like the idea of multi-family planning commission could not deny it from that perspective but if there is a traffic study and you write in write out or small it's more technical from that perspective. Are there any other guests that would like to speak? My name is Brandon and I'm a Burnside resident me and my wife. Is there possible that we can go back to the previous map that showed some of the parcels? Okay we live on the corner of 160 Jersey Lane on the very end me and my wife would like to know are there any more houses that are being planned to be built next to us because we're right on the very corner of 160 Jersey Lane all the way to the very end because there are just like a lot of shrubbery and weeds and bushes out there so we didn't know if they were planning on building any more houses on the that corner around Phillips Lane we're on the corner of 160 Jersey Lane. So what I can tell you is and Platt has not been submitted for approval for more lots past that however those rights away and those alignments have been put in place that's why it shows up on our official map so Jersey Lane is supposed to come out curve and hit Phillips Lane okay the general concept so if you're backing up to that you would have neighbors it depends on the market and when the developer would move those things forward but I couldn't do it that's sort of in their hands. Okay. The developer could probably answer that more. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other guests that would like to speak? If not, is there any other discussion? Can I have a motion? Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion to approve number six on the agenda as a as printed as a major amendment to a plan unit development. Can I have a second? Second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed say by no. Motion passes. Next item. We have one other item under other business this evening which is the adoption of the revised planning commission rules and procedures as I mentioned last month those contain most of the rules and procedures that you've had before but it also brings them up to the same standards as the adopted document that City Council adopted for boards and commissions as well as incorporates practices that are seen throughout the rest of the state. So we can discuss it you can make a motion or we can talk until next month if you wanted to. Are there any questions for staff? Good to me. I'll make a motion that we adopt the revised planning commission rules and procedures. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. Motion carries. As there is no other business can someone make a motion to adjourn the meeting? Mr. Chairman I like to make a make a motion to adjourn. Second. Second. Meeting is adjourned.