 by Richland County. Case 3 annex dash 2023 dash 0013 408 Piney Woods Road and 418 Piney Woods Road request recommendation on the assignment of the land use classification of transportation and utilities and the assignment of zoning of light industrial district for pending annexation. The property is currently classified as mixed residential high density and zone light industrial by Richland County. Case number 4 under major subdivision preliminary plat review S plat dash 2022 dash 0070 37.52 acres at the 4500 block of Percival Road request preliminary plat approval for the construction of a 93 lot single family residential subdivision victory Woods Village Phase 3. The property is currently zoned RM1 residential mixed district. Case 5 under future land use map confirmation land use or LUM a dash 2023 dash 0001 800 Dutch Square Boulevard request recommendation on the confirmation of the future land use classification of urban core community activity center. The property is currently signed an interim future land use classification of urban core community center community activity center. Case 6 under the zoning map confirmation is ZMA dash 2023 dash 0011 800 Dutch Square Boulevard request to confirm the zoning of community activity center corridor. The property currently has an interim zoning of community activity center corridor. And finally case number 7 under zoning map amendment ZMA dash 2023 dash 0012 on the south side of I-20 it Spears Creek Church Road a portion there of request recommendation to rezone 34.4 acres from general commercial district to residential mixed district. And that concludes the consent agenda. Hearing none is there anybody from the public that would like to see an item on the consent agenda removed and put on to the regular meeting. Hearing is seen none. With none I will entertain a motion. I'll move to approve the June 8 2023 minutes along with the consent agenda items and any staff recommendations. Got a motion to approve the consent agenda. Can I get a second? Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor. Any opposed? No. The ayes have it. We will now move to the regular agenda. Okay the first item on the regular agenda is item number 8. It is annex 2023 dash 0010. It is a group of properties at 300 Clemson Road and 200 Clemson Road including a one acre portion that actually fronts on Spears Creek Church Road. Tax amount number is 25700 dash 02 dash 03 a portion thereof and 25700 0205 also a portion. And the request is a recommendation on the assignment of a land use classification of community activity center corridor which is AC2 and neighborhood activity center corridor AC1 and the assignment of a zoning of general commercial district GC concurrent with a pending annexation. The property is currently classified as mixed use corridor and zone rural and residential single family low density by Richland County. The applicant is the property owner but the representatives for the property owner are actually present. Briefly I'd like to get into the staff recommendation on the request. Staff is actually recommending denial of the request and actually I should note a brief correction in the recommendation as printed. There it says that we recommend the annexation and the assignment of the land use and zoning and honestly we're just making recommendation on the land use and zoning district the annexation is a different matter. But regardless staff is recommending denial of the assignment of future land use classification of AC2 and AC1 and the zoning of GC as a requested zoning would not result in a development pattern that aligns with the recommendations of the county's comprehensive plan for that area. Richland County comprehensive plan states that the areas designated with a mixed use corridor future land use classification should be quote transformed over time from traditional strip commercial development to mixed use corridors connecting activity centers and between activity centers corridors should be redeveloped to convert single story single use developments on individual lots the multi-story mixed use formats that organize uses in a pedestrian friendly format and I will note that even though it is the county's land use plan the county and the city did jointly enter into that land use project only we adopted around separate portions there of people I'd answer any questions and like I said I know the owners representative is here in present it is the property contiguous to the city yes yeah and it is is right in front of the I believe it's called the Ash Cross subdivision which is in the city does the city serve water yes I guess how many utilities would be sewer that's correct we're not taking up the annexation component of it well technically when the planning commission reviews annexations you're making recommendations on the zoning and land use yeah any other questions before we have that come up thank you mr. Chandler my name is Bob Fallon I'm an attorney here in Columbia and I am here this afternoon with Craig Waits who is the real estate consultant for the property owner I've been associated with this property for over 40 years by virtue of representation of Ms. Lee Laura Prina who has owned the property for almost 60 years it was a tract of over 200 and some odd acres as it has now been sold after many years of being off the market for any purpose and this remained a piece of some 15 acres is being presented to you as a proposal for general commercial property which is consistent with what has been anticipated use since the decision was made to sell any of it for any purpose the discussion has been ongoing for many years is consistent with what's happening in the area we believe it to be an appropriate zoning for annexation and zoning within the city as well as within the county Craig waits can address the nuances of difference between general commercial and the CAC differentiations that we deem important and I'm going to give him the opportunity to make that presentation and respond to those matters that may concern you miss Prina initially took the fishes and this property was simply the whole earth together realities do change she's still alive at over 100 years old but in a nursing facility in Washington DC she is alert and cognizant though she has deferred most of her decision making to others but it was always her intention to have this property maintained in a manner that was consistent with the inference of Columbia and Ritzman County as it developed although she would have preferred that nothing happened with it so I will give any time that I have to Craig to present and to deal with it and if you have questions I can address historically I'll be glad to thank you thank you my name is Craig waits I'm with Carrier's real estate company here in Columbia and as Mr. Fuller said I am the real estate consultant for the property just to add to a little bit of the history you know we we've actually we've been working on the property for five or six years with with staff we did was originally 227 acres and we came up with a plan that would have Craig can you speak a little bit yeah I'm sorry can you hear me now Sanford lean down a little bit is that better okay so we we have we've had a plan in place for about five years and it's always involved a single family a multi-family and a commercial component as y'all are aware we have developed the single family is under development with the Mungo company now there's also a multi-family project that is under construction right now both of those particular parcels and those projects were annexed separately and they were annexed and zoned based off of the uses so we come now to the commercial sector and the commercial portion of this property and I think we all agree that in working with staff that it's it there's there's obviously a level of commercial application to it the the staff is recommended a CAC zoning and more or less we would contend that it is GC is a is more appropriate for this area I hope you're you're able I hope you didn't mind me sending you the email just simply because I tried to outline a little bit of what my thoughts were with regards to the differences between GC and and CAC but in short the we there's 60 acres of GC zoning just to the north in fact that was actually zoned from MU1 or MU2 one of the two I can't remember what the got Mr. Gottlieb's property do we rezone it from it was rezoned from MU1 MU2 it was in the MU actual zoning in the city and that was rezoned to GC last year to accommodate a public's development as well as a convenience store there's plan for the corner of earth and and Clemson Road so the you know the GC district is established in the area and in fact this established to the northern portion of the of the area away from I-20 so you would you would tend to think that the GC would be an applicable zoning on the southern side of that particular property closer to the interstate you know also when you're looking at the the CAC versus zoning I was I was I was actually part of the planning process and when we instead started the the new zoning ordinance and you know I just I personally believe that the CAC is a little bit more urban oriented and if you look at it it does discuss pedestrian friendly walkability which I get and we we want that but you know this is a five lane road with cars going 50 miles an hour it's not it's not walkable and it's you know a quarter of a mile from the interstate so I you know I feel like GC is more of a more appropriate zoning if you just look at the general character of the area thirdly as far as uses the one of the I guess the two things that the two uses specifically that are problematic in the GC would be drive-thru restaurants as well as as well as convenience stores the convenience store use is not if you didn't correct me if I'm wrong but the convenience store use is actually still allowed but it requires that the canopy be placed in the back as opposed to the front and for those of you that are in the real estate business and know that that that business itself that it's just it's not practical the way that the site would be set up so it's really it's really the deterrent for convenience store type use so the GC does allow that and I do feel like that this area in this particular property portions of this property you're tailored to drive through restaurants and and convenience stores and so that would be important for that for the GC zoning as well and then I guess lastly the the the I guess my last point is that the mixed use from the county it's really not a one-to-one I mean it's defined by mixed use but if you look at what what the definitions are and what they include and what they don't include it's a it's a blend I mean it's the CAC and the GC and in fact that the the the the the description itself even says that GC is an applicable zoning in the mixed in a mixed use corridor so and then if you look at the county's map land use map I mean it includes all of Tenocht Road which is you know dotted with convenience stores and drive through restaurants and so for all for all those reasons I would you know ask that the to the planning commission consider the GC zoning as opposed to the CAC as a part of the annexation and I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions from the planning commission? Was this part of the original Ashcroft? No it was we it was all part of the original 227 acres that the preenolent preenor property owned and we ultimately subdivided the property we'd we'd subdivided it twice thus far we sold off 180 acres to the Mungo which became Ashcroft and then we sold off another 20 acres to a Charlotte developer for the multifamily and then we have this left so we've actually only done two transactions but on both of those we brought individually we brought those in through annexation and zoned them for those particular uses at that time. So it wasn't part of there was part of the initial larger parcel? Yeah well it was I would I would reframe it to say that Ashcroft was actually part of our parcel as opposed to us being part of Ashcroft if that makes makes sense. Some annex but yeah. Any additional questions for the applicant? Thank you. Is there anybody else here from the general public that would like to speak for against the project? Nobody else? Is there any questions from the commission to staff regarding GC versus any other zoning? I mean I would say that I did read Craig's email there's a lot of valid points in here there's GC just to the north of it in my mind it makes a lot of sense to be GC so it feels right for this area. For me it might not be the plan that if I'm a resident in these neighborhoods I think GC feels right for what personally I would like to see if you can give more of the mix of potential developments in the area. Can staff elaborate a little bit more on the removal of the annexation portion and and how that ties into how we're classifying the zoning without? Yeah thanks for the question it's not it was not really the removal of it's just that whenever the Planning Commission makes recommendations to City Council about properties that are going to be annexed the Planning Commission recommendation pertains only to the recommended land use and the recommended zoning and then City Council looks at the other things that are considered with an annexation so this is standard for the procedural part it was just that there was a miss maybe we just accidentally put that into the recommendation that it included a recommendation on the annexation that was just a typo but it's not really changed the recommendation so for the public and everybody else we are to go into the assumption that it is going to be annexed and our recommendation is the recommendation will go to council either way correct and they'll make that decision. Any other questions for staff? Hearing none I'll accept the motion. Mr. Chairman I'd like to make a motion that we approve annex 2023-0010 9.1 acre portion 15.4 acre portion and one acre portion of 300 Clemson Road for the Assignment of Zoning of General Commercial for pending annexation. Second. Got a motion to approve got a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. The ayes have it the motion is approved. In the final case on the agenda is a text amendment this is TA 2023-0003 request to amend the unified development ordinance chapter 17 article 4 use regulations to remove the Fort Jackson spacing requirement for body piercing and tattoo establishments and a copy of that change to the the text is included in your packet and if you have any specific questions about it Ms. Hasty is here to get into details. There was a thousand foot setback requirement off of the Fort Jackson area and now they just removed that. Correct. Is there anybody here just just planning commission have any questions for staff any concerns is there anybody here in the general public that would like to speak for against this request? Hearing none I will accept that motion. Mr. Chairman I'd like to make a motion to approve TA 2023-0003 Got a motion on the second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed no. The ayes have it. I don't think we do. All in motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed no. We will adjourn. Thank you. Take care. See you.