 take a chainsaw to a tree, that's pretty intentional. Whether they move, they could do it or not. It's just like us. You anything good? They're still a little crazy, and they're still training. Yeah, it was. We always go to... Were you? Yeah. Yeah, so we were too mad at them now, so we had to actually go find some more room. We were starting to get illiterate. 40 of them? We were down there? We never went there. Good afternoon. We will call to order the July 2018 City of Columbia Planning Commission meeting. At this time, I'd like to welcome all Planning Commission members, staff, and guests. I would also like to ask that everyone turn their cell phones and PDAs to the silent or vibrate mode. The Administrator will now proceed with the roll call. Mr. Cohn? Here. Mr. Dolphin? Here. Mr. Frost? Mm-hmm. Ms. Hartz? Here. Ms. James? Here. Ms. Mandel? Here. Mr. Stickermire? Here. Mr. Tupper? Here. Mr. Waites? Here. Mr. Wormat? Here. Mr. Wormat. Applicants with requests before the Planning Commission are allowed at a planning 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 the request. 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. The Planning Commission uses the Consent Agenda to approve noncontroversial or routine matters by a 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 would like to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda, that item is removed from the Consent Agenda and considered during the meeting. The Planning Commission then approves remaining Consent Agenda items. The Administrator will now read the Consent Agenda. Item number one, approval of the June 3, 2019 minutes. Item number two, which is comprehensive plan map amendment and zoning map amendment for pending annexation, which is 1.10 acre portion of the 300 block of Clemson Road, TMS number 25700-02-03, which is a request and recommendation to annex, assign a land use classification of urban edge mixed residential and assign a zoning of general residential. The property is currently classified as mixed use corridor and zoned rural district within Richland County. Item number three, which is the 100 block of shop Grove Drive, TMS number 16200-04-31, 16202-01-01, and 0-2, and 16202-03-01 through 0-4. And this is a request for approval for group development signage for shop Grove, the properties that are zoned M1. And then lastly, a street name request within the Northwood Villas at Wood Creek Forms, formerly known as Eastwood Villas. And that street name request is for Dormey Lane, the consent agenda items one through four. Thank you. Do any commission members or guests wish to have any items on the consent agenda removed and placed on the regular agenda? Is there anyone who wants anything else removed? And what we'll do is two motions. I'll ask for a motion to approve the consent agenda. One with all the items except for item number two. Right. And then do item number two. All right. So I'd like to get a motion to approve the consent agenda entirely. Because then we'll come back. And that's with Mr. Waits recused. Correct. All right. All in favor signify by saying aye. First motion is approved. You don't need a second. So that's going to take us to item number five. Okay. That's on the regular agenda, right? Correct. You've already approved the consent agenda. Mr. Waits recused on all of the items. So consent agenda is approved. All right. So that's going to take us to the regular agenda. We're now going to move to the regular agenda. I would also like to remind everyone when they come forward to please state their name clearly before speaking. We will now continue with the regular agenda. All right. That's going to take us to item number five, which is a comprehensive plan map amendment and zoning map amendment, um, which is 1.42 acres on joiner road. 1528 joiner road. 6817 Deloche drive. 6809 Deloche drive. 6801 joiner road. 1503 joiner road. 1509 joiner road. 1515 joiner road. 1521 joiner joiner road. 1527 joiner road. 1535 41 joiner road. And this is a request and recommendation to annex an assigned land use classification of urban edge residential small lot. Um, UER one and assign a zoning single family residential district RS to the property is currently classified as neighborhood medium density is a single family residential medium density in Richland County. And I believe the applicant is present. It can explain their exact annexation. Are there any questions from the commission members to staff? The applicant like to come forward? The applicant is not present. Um, but at this point, this is just this is a request to annex this property into the city. Um, there is a site plan that has been approved outside of the county, which it was approved in, um, Richland County. So this is just the annexation portion at this time. I'd like to call for a motion. We have a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Anyone oppose? Passes. That's going to bring us to, um, the site plan review for 162 plus or minus acres at 300 Clemson road, which is the AF cross ask cross, um, subdivision. This property was recently annexed into the city. Um, the piece that's north of Clemson road that is shown kind of near the corner of Earth Road and Clemson road was just the piece that was discussed during the consent agenda. This, um, request is for a cluster housing development. It will contain I believe 607 units. Um, 511 detached single family residential structures along with 96 attached town home, um, residential units. There is the staff recommendation from the fire department has requested a deferral with regards to a asking the applicant to provide a third means of emergency ingress and egress into, into the site. And I believe the applicant can speak to that, um, once they come forward. Okay. Any questions for staff first? The applicant like to come forward. Good afternoon. I'm Bill Dixon with mongo homes. Um, we've reviewed all of the staff comments on the report and are able to comply with all of them. Um, I would request if this is possible for planning commission to approve this subject to compliance with all of staff conditions. It does. Yes. He and I have emailed back and forth. Mr. George Adams, he and I have emailed back and forth. We've also been in contact with the permitting office of SCDOT on a location on Spears Creek church road, which is just a few hundred feet from the fire station subject to meeting all of those conditions. Thank you. Comfortable with that? We are. Okay. I would like to ask for a motion to approve. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion for site plan review on that 300 Winston Road also, um, approval with staff condition. I have a second. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motions approved. That's going to bring us to item number seven, which is a minor amendment to a plan unit development at 501 Beltline Boulevard and 0.26 East, 2.0, 0.26 acres the east side of Beltline Boulevard, TMS number 13810 01-07 and 13810 dash 0106. And this is a request for a minor amendment. Um, this PUD was approved sometime ago and there was a tree that was required to be preserved. That tree had was removed and in lieu of that the applicant is proposing to install three inch caliper trees versus two inch caliper trees. Um, the rest of the development would stay the same except for that the increasing tree caliper. There is also a letter of opposition. I believe you have a copy of it, but we want to make sure that we put it into the record as an exhibit exhibit eight. And it's a email from Valerie Marcel to Rachel Bailey dated Monday, July 1st at 544 p.m. And it is a letter of opposition. And the applicant as president can explain their case. Questions for staff? The applicant would like to come forward. Mr. Members, my name is Harold Pickerel. I own the company that owns that property. In the process of demoing the building and grading the property out because it was a fairly large hill there that we had to take down five or six feet. The contractor took down a 26 inch pine tree by mistake. Ironically, he left four or five pine trees there that were supposed to come down. So it's down. There's not a lot we can do about it other than offer to upgrade our landscape by going to the larger caliper trees. So that's what we've done. So there's been one tree taken down. One 26 inch pine tree that was supposed to be left. Yes, ma'am, we were in the process of demoing that there was an old, old duplex there. We tore it down. We've got a new site plan that was approved putting eight brand new town homes there. And he was grading it out. There's a retaining wall that goes across that property line on the back and he was taking out the trees that needed to come out to do that and inadvertently took down a tree that was not supposed to be taken down. Was the tree marked at all? Honestly, it's a 26 inch pine tree. It's not a grand tree. If it had been a big oak tree, I would totally get that. But it's not by city standards. It's not a grand tree. So it was a mistake on his part. So we're trying to go back with something better than a pine tree. And we will. Well, we took down what was allowed to be taken down under the site plan that was approved. If you look at the picture, there's one of those lights, there's no trees on it whatsoever. There was a few trees right by the duplex that was there that we took down. So the whole site didn't have 10, 12 trees on it. I mean, you can see it right there. Concerns was that what you planned on for the trees was too much for the property that you're doing that they won't thrive. Have you looked at that to make sure that the trees will thrive or what would you put in? Yes, ma'am. When I read her letter, you know, when I spoke with Mr. Chambers and agreed to upgrade the landscaping, put in larger trees, mentioned putting in some magnolias or live oaks, I read where she said one live oak would take up that entire site to be 200 years old. But, you know, that's, so that's not correct. You know, we have, I do a good bit of development in the city of Columbia and I think our landscaping speaks for itself. So we'll put back what has got its best chance of living there. If it's, you know, if it's magnolias, great, if it's live oaks, great, but it would take, I mean, literally none of us will be alive. By the time a live oak gets to be big enough to envelop that site, it's just not going to happen. You know, they are difficult trees to grow, but we also mentioned magnolias, any kind of evergreen tree along that back property line is where it goes. I understand. It's just a little bit of a struggle because that idea that it's something that's retrieved under certain circumstances, the idea that oaks happen by confidence, and you had approved it for a very specific day. Did you get the pledge approved? So you weren't the first to be applied for the pledge 12 years ago, were you? No, I bought the pledge. The land development planner, when this initially came up and we notified the developer of the situation, they immediately stopped work and started throwing, you know, started trying to come up with solutions. The land development planner has reviewed their proposal to increase the tree caliper from two and a half to three, and he feels that it is sufficient to contain on the site. We were made aware that there was just grading on the site, and people just inquiring as to kind of what was being developed. And when we went out there, we determined that the tree had been removed. Contacted the developer, and the developer, as he said, he purchased the PUD, bought the property, and I'm not sure as to, you know, the PUD is very specific where it says that the tree has to be preserved, but it's, you know, when you look at it, you have to really determine that tree had to be there, because other trees on the site could have been removed as he stated. I've got a question for staff. We are assuming that this tree removal company is a licensed company with the City of Columbia. Is that correct? I'm not sure there was a tree removal company. I believe it happened with the grading when they did the grading. So whoever was doing the job was licensed by the City of Columbia, is that correct? Yes. So have there been any other incidents with this same company in the past, and is there any way to avoid it in the future by issuing them a warning of some kind? We have spoken to them about the situation, and again, they immediately agreed to stop work. They haven't done any work since we've been in contact with them. We went out there, looked at the site. The developer has again agreed to kind of work with us regarding getting it resolved. They didn't say, well, can we go ahead and continue to build this building and deal with that tree? They just totally stopped Cold Turkey until we worked this out. And again, the Land Development Planner has reviewed the increase in caliper. I don't recall ever approving a pud since we've been here that is tied to a tree. How often is the City approve puds that have specific trees that need to be preserved or was offered in the pud process? This pud was approved in 2007. They used to be a lot more specific in the neighborhood opposition or if there was just something hanging up, approvals, that was often thrown in for those early 2000s. Any other questions for the applicant? Anyone else like to come forward? I'd like to call for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve the minor amendment as presented. I have a second. I'll in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone oppose? Motion's approved. We have one more item to approve the minutes. That's going to bring us to the motion to amend the previous approved minutes, May 6. And I believe Ms. Wolfe is going to speak to that. We found that there was an error in some formatting discrepancies in the main minutes. So we would like the commission to make a motion to amend something previously approved. You had approved the minutes so that we can have the correct information there. Some of the information merged from a prior month. That's for the May 6, 2019 meeting minutes that were approved at the June 3 meeting. If you could just make a motion to approve those, we can go ahead and take the corrected minutes and they will be posted and it will be approved. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone oppose? Motion's approved. Thank you. I think since there's no other business, I'll call for an adjournment. I'll make a motion with adjourn. All in favor? Meeting adjourned.