 Good afternoon. I would like to call the May 20, 2018, City of Columbia Planning Commission meeting. We'd like to welcome all Planning Commissioners, Commission members, staff, and guests today. I would like that everyone turn their cell phones and PDAs to the silent or vibrate mode. This is the light changing, right? Okay, the administrator will now proceed with the roll call. Mr. Tupper. Here. Ms. Hartz. Here. Mr. Taylor. Here. Mr. Cohn. Here. Mr. Stiggenmeier. Here. Ms. James and Mr. Waetz. Here. We have formed. Thank you. A brief review of the meeting format for all of you who have not attended before. Applicants with requests before the Planning Commission are allowed at 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 representing presenting information on behalf of the applicants such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the Planning Commissioners 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. The Consent Agenda. Planning Commission uses the Consent Agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion or 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 would like to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda, 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. The administrator will now read the Consent Agenda. This evening, your Consent Agenda consists of the approval of the April 9th, 2018 minutes, as well as two minor amendments to a plan unit development. Those two consist of number two on your agenda, which is a zoning map amendment for 42 Catherine Park Court, as well as all the other addresses on Catherine Park Court listed on your agenda. And this is a minor amendment to a PUD that essentially is allowing for one of the properties to have a porch added to the back of their property. Item number three is also the zoning map amendment for 325 Taylor Street. It is also a PUD in Canal Side, and it's an amendment of all of those addresses and parcel numbers. And this minor amendment allows for an entry sign to be located within that particular PUD, as well as item number four, which is a zoning map amendment for 145 Club Ridge Road. This is in the Wood Creek subdivision, and this is on an amendment to the PUD, which is basically an adjustment of a lot line for that particular PUD. Your Consent Agenda also consists of zoning map amendments for 939 West Confederate Avenue. This is to rezone the parcel from a plan unit development to a RS3 single-family zoning district, as well as a zoning map and text amendment for 1633 Main Street and 1635 Main Street. This is to rezone the parcel to basically add a DP overlay. So this is a would be a landmark group three structure on Main Street. Item number seven, which is also a zoning map and text amendment, which is 1637 Main Street. This is identical to the one above, which is to add the DP zoning district to this particular parcel and designated a group three landmark. And then on your Consent Agenda, wrapping that up, we have two more items, which are site plans. One is for a 45-acre site plan at the corner of Shady Oaks Road and Jacobs Mill Road. And item number nine, which is a 141-acre subdivision for site plan review at 2031 County Line Trail, consisting of 80, an 80 lot single-family residential subdivision. That concludes your Consent Agenda. Are there any Commission members or guests today who wish to have items on the Consent Agenda removed and placed on the regular agenda? You have to please come forward, state your name. My name is Ethan Magnuson. I'm a member of the general public. And I had a couple questions about the site plan reviews. What number are you specifically talking? Both, eight and nine. My question was about the need for more single-family residential subdivisions. I think what we need to do, if I'm not mistaken, is probably take this off the Consent Agenda and put it on the regular agenda, and then we'll call you at that point. I just wanted to make sure first that my concerns were appropriate for this to be voiced at this time. So it's just a site plan, so the zoning allows for that development there? Right. So I guess if you wanted to take those two off Consent, you could, or you could leave it on Consent, but if you continue the conversation, you should probably take one or both of them off the Consent Agenda. Approve your Consent Agenda and then address items eight and nine. My concerns are more about the zoning, so I think it probably wouldn't be as appropriate here, since it seems like this is just about the site plan itself. Staff can answer questions afterwards too. Do you want to remove it from the Consent Agenda? It's up to you. No, I was saying that my concerns were more related to the zoning of those areas rather than to the site plans themselves. Okay. In that case, it's fine. All right. Thank you. I just wanted to ask. All right. Anyone else have, if there are no other concerns on the Consent Agenda, can I get a motion to please approve the Consent Agenda? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Do we have a second? Second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Consent Agenda is approved. We'll now proceed with the regular agenda. The first item on your regular agenda this evening is a minor amendment to a plan unit development. This is for 3118 Rosewood Drive. It's a PUD consisting of 100 rows circled, 102 rows circled, 104, 106, 108, 110, and 112 rows circled. It is a minor amendment to a plan unit development district. And essentially this PUD is fairly specific, including elevations and floor plans. And the developer wants to change those specific floor plans and elevations. Therefore, the minor amendment to the plot is required. They are here and have a presentation. So you want to hear from them and then maybe ask questions? That'd be fine. Would the applicant come forward? Everybody, my name is Eddie Handel. I actually purchased the property maybe five or six months ago. It was a PUD that was done back in 2009. And we're essentially not doing anything other than changing the elevations of the built. There's a seven-unit building that's already there now. It's actually all rental property. I'm essentially student housing or what have you. We're bringing on single family affordable housing for Rosewood District going for a different angle than what they did originally. To be blunt, what the guy built there before, just there's a reason it didn't work. He tried to sell $500,000 houses in a $250,000 to $350,000 sector. And then he had to turn them into rental properties. So essentially what I'm doing is taking the exact same number of units, the exact same virtually square foot is worth in 50 feet to the square feet of it. They got a one-carb garage just like the other ones had. We just got a more economical build than what he did before. He essentially built something you build in New York City. That's the way to put it from an aesthetic standpoint and a build of college standpoint. It's really that simple. We're not changing anything other than the still going to be all brick, just like what's down there now. It's going to be three bedrooms, three baths, just like what's down there now. It's got a one-carb garage just what's down there now. We're just changing the look of the building. Any questions for the applicant? I mean, we can if you'd like. I'd like to see. It's just a conceptual of what we have. The particular pod they turned in was very specific in the elevations and floor plan were turned in with them, which is odd actually, other than you normally just go for square footages and bedrooms and bathrooms. My question is for you, John. I'm just curious. I mean, it's obviously a very reasonable request. Why did this make it on the regular agenda, not on the consented agenda? Was there a reason that it didn't make it on the consented agenda? When the original pod was done a number of years ago, there was a lot of conversation within the community. Usually any kind of rezoning that happens along Rosa Drive typically brings out people from either side of the street. Usually once we have the agenda out, people and they see the signs and things, so we left it on the agenda with anticipation that there might be public comment. Fair enough. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to come forward and speak about this item? I'll ask for a motion then. We have a second. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone oppose? Motion is approved. Your next agenda on the agenda is number 11. This is a land use map amendment for the future land use map for the Sea of Columbia. As you're aware, we're about ready to begin with our comprehensive plan for 2018 for the next 10-year cycle. And so we went through the land use plan that was adopted back in 2015 looking at a number of items. Each of these you see on your agenda a number of bullet points. Some of them actually never had a classification of land use when we received the data from the consultant. Some very small parcels were actually missed, so they didn't actually have an assignment. But when you looked at the map in an 8.5, 11 by 14 kind of layout, you weren't zoomed in to really see that. So there were some items like that. There was also some technical errors. This list consists of a number of items for corrections that we felt would clean up the map before going into the comprehensive list of it. We can walk you through all the maps if you're interested. Lee can play a real quick summary if you'd like. It is. I mean there are changes to the land use plan. It is a policy document. It is not a regulatory document. It does influence decisions and things like that. So I mean it is a policy document, but it's not changing someone's zoning. But it is a tool that's used by yourselves and city council. Do you want to highlight a couple? I mean a lot of these more closely align with the proposals that we're making, more closely align with what's actually on the ground or who the owner is. For example, this property is a, which is above you on Spears Creek Church Road, is a retirement facility. And the AC3 designation is a regional activity corridor. So it just didn't quite align with what that property was. Yeah. Going through them. So this is property that the city owns that they've placed. So here's the park and then adjacent to it, there is some housing that's been placed. It just doesn't make sense for it to be employment campus and said it should really be reflective of the community so that UCR won the urban core residential small lot. Same thing here. This is a park right across from the hangar that's just been developed in Rosewood. This is a park space for it to be employment campus. You can see the track in the upper left that the schools use. It just makes more sense to be aligned with the neighborhood and be that urban core residential like we see a lot of our schools are zoned in those or land use assigned in those areas. Reflective of the neighborhood. This is a set of multifamily apartments. So you can see actually that this is the case where one of those was missed. If you look in the middle right there where it says the water tower for some reason that parcel was missed. So it did not have a feature land use classification that EMR is urban edge mixed residential. So it more adequately or appropriately aligned with the properties than the industrial zone or industrial. These properties were I think pulled in because of how they drew the polygon on the not but those properties are not owned by the state to SD to is civic and institutional. And so we just wanted to reflect that they were actually part of the the corridor instead of the civic institution. They're not staying on properties. This is kind of a grouping of properties. We've noticed that some of the properties that are owned by SD and G and by the city along the river there were identified as urban edge mixed residential. So we're provided proposing transportation and utilities and then SC4 where the zoo is in place down there at the bottom of the page. And then up towards the river raid you have the campus for one the life. And so it makes more sense as an employment campus than it does as that activity center the urban core activity center. And the SD2 that's currently there is school and so it makes more sense to apply that feature land use classification like we've applied others. When we see the SD2 classification we're really thinking about larger institutions and this is just a simple school. These as well appear to be mapping errors that were moved by that type of development team and they just weren't caught at that scale like John was talking about. But those properties you can see from the area photo you might have thought that they might be residential developments because they come at the end of the residential development from the other side but they are part of the state property there. The SD2 is proposed there. This is along kind of the other category of things that we're talking about where we've developed some plans since the adoption of the land use plan. And so when we looked at the south main plan that y'all have reviewed relatively recently for those USB properties they looked at how we're looking at our downtown classifications through Wester Bay. We had some changes throughout the downtown area. We have talked to USC about these. The existing feature land use in the green there is the SD3. That's the central business district. We're proposing the UCAC3, the Urban Chora Activity Center, the regional which is what a lot of the VISTA is. There's other areas but it also has it's more amenable to them in a height kind of discussion there. And then the box in the blue is SD5 that's universities and colleges. Really we're not trying to extend USC tax to the west of the assembly where this is really part of the inner business and making that match to the rest of the inner business of the UCAC3. So that's something that USC we had that conversation in the row. Same thing with these properties as well. These are properties that simply are not aimed by the university. So while they're part of that block area it would be unnecessary to go ahead and include them in the SD5 because we'd like to see the SD5 reflected in the new zoning with that university and institutional district that will allow them to come up with a plan for that area. And so that would be unnecessary for them to plan for an area which they do not. Same thing with these as well. Again, SD3 here, moving them the downtown corner. And then this is actually Lutheran Theological Seminary which is now one or Ryan. Same thing here. There were some properties that were pulled in and then those are actually this one is actually part of that larger SD5 parcel the one in the middle there and it just was simply missed and then the ones left on the right were aimed by the college but we're not we felt what those would be encroachments into the residential neighborhood so it was more appropriate to reflect that. And then this one just from a standpoint you see that UCAC1 is urban core activity center at the neighborhood level but it's surrounded by urban edge residential so it's more appropriate for it to be that urban edge activity center. Here we we felt that these areas were really more of a spur to the urban core activity center so these became the corridor which so we talk about kind of our activity centers and then our corridors which is really more of a corridor development. And this area here it just didn't make sense for the urban edge activity center to come back farther into the neighborhood along the backside of Lutheran where I did you just we weren't going to see that sort of density there so this is going to be more reflected with EBR1 of the neighborhood area. And these areas same thing this regional activity center that they were they were assigned the urban edge family that just doesn't make sense for properties that are really at kind of that crossroads so we're proposing I think one is a gas station and one is a restaurant so we're proposing that thing. And these were actually under development at the time of the land use plan but I don't think some of the buildings were built or those buildings that were built were probably not reflected in the aerial photos and so they had kind of split the parcels between urban edge multifamily and urban edge residential which is really more of a single family district but it's that entire area that's going to be developed in the manner you see to the right of the screen. So that's that's a development same thing here this you know it just didn't make sense for that urban residential which is single family to be right along the edge of I-77 especially when it's founded by that multifamily development. And this one was simply missing but this one you could see how it would be easy to miss the map but it's a small residential lot that's in the city and has been in the city which just wasn't assigned to keep the land use. So the surrounding neighborhood as you see them out is actually urban edge residential type T which is a larger lot residential so this will align with that. Thank you. Sorry they're all throughout the city it's like you got a little tour today. Do we have anyone any guests? Any questions? I'll ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion to approve the request to amend chapter 8.3 of the Columbia plan 2018 future land use mount to modify land use classifications for parcels throughout the city that were just listed. Second. Any further discussion and favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Oppose? Motion is approved. Any other business? Not at this time. Very good then I'll ask for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Chairman I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor. Aye. Meeting's adjourned.