 Good afternoon. I would like to call to order the June 2019 City of Columbia Planning Commission meeting. We'd like to welcome all Planning Commission members, staff, and guests. At this point in time, would everyone please turn their cell phones and PDAs to the silent or vibrate mode. The Administrator will now proceed with the roll call. Mr. Dolphin? Here. Mr. Tupper? Here. Mr. Cohn? Here. Mr. Stigamire? Here. Ms. James? Here. And Mr. Frost? Here. We have a quorum. Thank you. A brief review of the meeting format. Applicants with request 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 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 Commission or 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 the 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 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, that item is removed from the Consent Agenda and considered during the meeting. The Planning Commission then approves the remaining Consent Agenda items. The Administrator will now read the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda is, number one, the approval of the May 6th minutes, a site plan review for 2050 Wood Creek Farms Road, which is a request for site plan approval to construct a 48-lot townhouse residential subdivision, a zoning text amendment, which is a request to amend the text of 17-258 to permit hotels, motels, and tourist courts in the C-2 zoning district, a zoning map amendment for 2221 Divine Street, also known as 2204 Lee Street and 2215 Divine Street, which is a request to rezone the parcels from C-1 to C-2, and a future land use map amendment for 2215 Divine Street, which is a request to modify the land use classification for that parcel from UCAC-2 to AC-2. Do any Commission members or guests today wish to have items on the Consent Agenda removed and placed on the regular agenda? Okay. I'd like to ask for a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. I have a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone oppose? Consent Agenda is approved. We will now proceed with the regular agenda. Anyone speaking? I'd like to remind them when they come forward to please state their name clearly. Thank you. All right. So the regular agenda is a zoning text amendment about eating and drinking establishments, and we have our zoning administrator, Rachel Bailey, here to talk about that. So this is a three-part text amendment. It's repealing and amending portions of 1755, 17258, and 17269 related to eating and drinking establishments. So it removes certain definitions and replaces them with the eating establishment only, eating and drinking establishment type 1, and eating and drinking establishment type 2. It updates the table of permitted uses to include those new three classifications and update parking. So, and it also repeals the tax of 17269 and replaces it and renames it with new conditions for all three of those new types of eating and drinking establishments. Thank you. Any questions for staff? I think I asked one earlier. We're just really changing the wordage of eating, am I correct, eating establishment only or? They're no longer split up to you're either an eating place or a drinking place. Now it's eating and drinking establishments. It's no longer looking at the percentage of sales. It's looking at hours of operation. So if a place is open until midnight, it's allowed outright in certain districts with conditions. And then if it's midnight or later, it's a special exception in any district in which it could be allowed. So it looks at those hours of operation instead of the kind of subjective review of is it more of a restaurant, is it more of a bar? So it's, the current code is outdated and this is actually very similar to what's in the proposed new code. Are there any guests who would like to speak today? If you'd come forward. Excuse me, I've got a frog in my throat. But my name is April Lucas. I reside at 911 Lawrence Street, which is between USC and five points. So we've been in front of city council. We've been in front of administrative law courts. We've gone everywhere we know to go to try to get some relief for our residents of our neighborhoods. I applaud this effort to distinguish the late night bars from some of the other restaurants and facilities. That is certainly hours or one benchmark, but density is also a huge issue. Many studies have been done linking societal problems, problems of alcoholism, problems of crime to the density and the hours of drinking establishments. It should not be a secret to anybody that we have a lot of drinking establishments in five points. These are not restaurants. We just went through a hearing at the administrative law court that involved cover three, cover threes, food sales were not 10%. They were not 1%. They were six 100s of 1%. So these rules that you're considering today I think do distinguish between late night and regular hours. However, they don't take into account or they don't give any specific directions to the zoning board of appeals to consider things like density, the current rule is 400 foot separation. We have these bars cheap by jowl. Some are on top of the other. Some are side by side. They share a wall. Some are right across the street. So that rule has not, no one's paid any attention to that rule. So my concern as a neighbor of five points is that we begin to take a look at density. We consider that as a factor. We consider not just the impact on an adjacent property, but also we consider the impact on neighborhoods that surround the district that are within walking distance. I can walk and frequently do walk to every establishment in five points. And there are several historic neighborhoods that surround that commercial district. It was a, it was established to serve those neighborhoods. We don't mind sharing it with students, but it should be regulated in such a way that it also serves us. I've got to thank you the time's up. Sure. Thank you. My name's Dick Harputlian and I have been an attorney and neighbor dealing with the over concentration of alcohol establishments in the five points area. I've got to tell you I'm a state senator. My concerns are not statewide. They're in five points. My concern with this amendment is it does away with any sense of concentration of alcohol establishments. We think that ought to be discretionary with the zoning administrator. And by the way, we're litigating these cases in front of the administrative law judge on whether the licenses ought to be granted at all. And we've had some success on that. I'm concerned with the 400 feet being done away with and nothing replacing it. I would not have a problem with some sort of statement that concentration is an element of what the zoning administrator should consider so that if neighbors had a problem with that, they could voice those concerns with the zoning administrator. The only other concern I have is this scheme of type one and type two may not be consistent with state law. So I'd ask you to have your attorney look at how the alcohol licensing. You have to have either a beer and wine or a liquor license to be a type one or type two. There is no requirement for food with a beer and wine license. There is with a liquor license liquor by the drain. So you may want to make this a little more consistent with the state statutes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? I can address one of the concerns with the proliferation and concentration by it requiring a special exception. That is one of the criteria the board of zoning appeals has to review. So they look at the impact on surrounding businesses and neighborhoods. They also look at the impact of the density, the concentration and proliferation. So by pulling it to a special exception, it opens it up to the public to attend a public hearing if they have concerns and also one of the main criteria the board considers is the concentration of that use in the districts. Okay. There are no other questions I'd like to call for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the zoning text amendment. Do I have a second? A second. Any further discussion? I'll in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone oppose? Any other business today? The only other business is just to remind you all in the public that we have a date change for next month's planning commission. It was July 1st. It's now July 8th. So it's the second Monday instead of the first Monday. Okay. Thank you, Shane. Nice job running it today too. Thanks. Do we have a motion for adjournment? Make a motion to adjourn. I'll in favor. A meeting is adjourned.