 Alright, good afternoon everyone. We're gonna go ahead and get started. First, I'd like to welcome everybody. Thank y'all for coming to today's March 2nd, 2023 Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. This is my first meeting serving as chair, so please be patient with me. But I would like to at this time introduce other members of the board. I'm gonna start to our right Celia McIntosh beside her, Catherine Finner, John Gignard to my immediate right to my immediate left. We have Charar Duvall and then Davis Whittle next to him. At this time, I'd like to also introduce other members of staff that assist the board. Thank y'all. We have Hope Hasey, zoning administrator, Erica Hyen, deputy zoning administrator and Sky Robinson Barnes, land use coordinator. The board is charged with hearing all applications for special exceptions, variances and administrative appeals. All testimony is recorded for the record and anyone wishing to speak will need to be sworn in and come to the podium to speak. No testimony may be taken from the floor. When you come to the podium, state your name and please speak clearly into the microphone because this meeting is being recorded. Applicants with cases before the board are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the board or staff regarding the case. Any member the public may address the board in the intervals of three minutes or five minutes if by a spokesperson for an established body or group of three or more. The applicant then has five months and five minutes for rebuttal. The board reserves the right to amend these limits on a case by case basis. All right. Those who plan to speak must be sworn. If you are here as an applicant or here to speak in any case, please stand at this time and raise your right hand. Okay, very well. Do you affirm or test that the testimony you will give today is the truth and nothing but the truth. All right. Thank you. At this time, I'll turn the meeting over to miss hasty. Thank you. Good afternoon. So before we get started with the consent agenda, I just want to make a quick announcement that the 1901 Rosewood case was withdrawn and that was kind of early on. So you probably aren't aware of that. But just if anyone's here for 1901 Rosewood, that case has been withdrawn. Okay. Moving through the consent agenda, we've got the approval of minutes from February 2nd 2023. Case 2023 005 V 1003 Richland Street. It's a variance request for the minimum fence height standard. Second case on the consent agenda is 2023 006 SE. It's next to 7401 Richard Street. And it's a special exception request to permit an alternative parking surface. And the final case on the consent agenda is case 2023 007 V 47 20 Renwood Lane. It's a variance request to the required side yard setback standard. And that concludes the items on the consent agenda. Would any members of the board like to remove the case from the consent agenda? Seeing none. At this time, I just want to let everybody know we're about to review the vote on the consent agenda. So if anybody's here for one of those cases, now's the time to speak or forever. Hold your peace. Seeing none. Um, I asked for a motion to approve the minutes in consent agenda. Please. Thank you. Do we have a second? There's a motion in a second. All those in favor, state I I anyone opposed. Motion approved. Right. Moving on to the regular agenda. We've got case 2023 003 SE. It's 408 and 436 Blossom Street 519 Hougie Street and 401 Wheat Street. And it's a special exception request to exceed the maximum density of bedrooms per acre for private dormitory. And the applicant is here and will be presenting the request today. I'm late in Lord with next and Pruitt. I live at 24 16 Terrace Way. As you all will remember, this matter was deferred last month for the sole reason to better investigate and understand traffic. The Grand Bien Olympia neighborhood Grand Bien Olympia neighborhood thought that this project would violate number three of the 13 requirements for special exception and that it would have a substantial adverse impact. Um, since that time, we have accelerated our traffic impact analysis and Liz Carpenter, our traffic fault is here today. She's completed that study. The SC Department of Transportation has reviewed that study and they've accepted that study as valid. We've also had meetings with the neighborhood and a very large meeting at the Department of Transportation that involved I think half the city staff and half the Department of Transportation and us in the middle and we heard the neighborhood's concerns. Um, and we also expressed what we would be able to do. Um, the traffic impact analysis conducted by Miss Carpenter showed that this project would have less traffic impact than the existing. This is what we thought. There's a gas station there. There's a gym. There are currently seven curb cuts on blossom and assembly. This project will bring that down to two or three. There'll be a lot less traffic coming off of those two areas and gas stations have a lot of traffic all day long. Student housing has intermittent traffic and not as much nearby student housing was studied and it was concluded that our project would have less of a traffic impact than the existing. And come nowhere close to being a substantial adverse impact. We feel like we've more than met that requirement of the special exceptions. We've also talked to area neighbors and as you all can see from your record, we've gotten a great deal of support for this project. The Vista Property Owners Association has written a letter of support for it. They say that this is what the Vista, in a Vista Overlay District needs. Two or three area property owners have also given letters of support for this project. Again, confirming that this is the type of project at the gateway to Columbia that's really going to set off this area of the neighborhood. Um, there are some requirements. Layton, could you move the microphone closer to your desk? This is actually. Is it on? That's okay. I'll speak very close to it. This is a better picture that was just updated of what the project's going to look like on the corner of a Fugian blossom. What we also wanted to show you was what the traffic impact analysis is recommending for this project, which I think is the next slide. So they do recommend some traffic modifications, extension of a concrete median along hugie, reconstructing of existing driveways along blossom. We're taking out the curb cuts. We're going to make the sidewalk more pedestrian friendly. Also, some pavement markings to make sure cars give pedestrians enough room there. In addition, and this is an addition because our traffic impact analysis does not call for signalization anywhere for this project. But the neighborhood, and I'm going to hear that in a minute, would very much like signalization in a lot of places. And subtext is willing to fund signalization at Katalba and hugie or another intersection that they can get it approved in order to be a good neighbor to the Grand Bien Olympia neighborhood. And this statement, which I'll try to read being close to the mics I can is subtext acquisitions agrees that a condition to obtain a built building permit for the Verve project on the corner of blossom and hugie streets, they will place funds in escrow for the purpose of installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Katalba and hugie or wheat and hugie or blossom in Williams, depending on which intersection signalization is approved by the necessary entities first in the city of Columbia in amount of $150,000. That was the estimate that we were given from SCDOT and from Davis and Floyd that this would cost. So I want to be very clear, this is not a requirement of our traffic impact analysis, but we were doing this in order to help the neighbors down the street and help their traffic. Traffic is bad for the Grand Bien Olympia neighborhood. We don't think we cause it, or we'll cause it to be worse, but we're willing to help the neighbors as much as we can. So, Bethany Rooney from subtext is here. If you all have any more questions for the developer, this carpenter is here. On traffic, if you have any more questions for her, I'll just conclude by saying, we believe this project will be a wonderful gateway to the Inavista and to the city of Columbia. This intersection is currently an old gas station. It's not very attractive. We're going to take the curb cuts out, make it a very attractive corner, lower the traffic volume around there, and make it a real showcase. Thank you. Questions? I have one question. When is the Blossom Street Bridge project supposed to be finished? Do you know? Liz may know. Okay, I thought so. Estimated before 2026. For the record, I'm going to recuse myself from this. Thank you. Thanks. Noted. Katherine, that's the Blossom Street Bridge. Replacing that. They're replacing. Yeah, they're replacing it alongside Palmetto Compress Warehouse, but they're saying it's going to be done by that time. It will. It's supposed to start, I think later this year. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Good. Good. Good. Thank you all. Thank you. Do we have anyone from the public that wishes to speak? Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Bob Gild with the Granby Neighborhood and the Mill District Alliance. I live at 314 Palm All Street in the Granby Mill Village neighborhood. First, I just want to say that we very much appreciate the verb developers, Cooperative Spirit, and working with us in the short period we had since we were before you last month. We did have that large meeting that Layton referred to with DOT city officials and Representative Seth Rose, and we appreciate all of their cooperation. A couple of points. First, we reiterate our fundamental position, which is that this project will indeed cause substantial adverse impacts to vehicular traffic pedestrian traffic. The traffic study that is alluded to simply did not look at the traffic impacts that are pertinent to my neighborhood, which have nothing to do with the existence of curb cuts or a gas station on Blossom Street. They have to do with whether or not the Granby Neighborhood could even get onto Blossom Street. The problem is the three limited intersections to egress the neighborhood will undoubtedly be adversely affected by adding 960 additional students, 500 car garage, all their friends into the neighborhood. The traffic study simply did not look at those impacts to us. They did not measure the peak traffic generated by a student dorm at that location. They simply look rush our traffic morning and evening, but at the same time, they make the point that students don't travel at those times. They travel different times, which is supposed to make us feel good. The only evidence you have in this record is the traffic study that was done for Park Place, which is in the record from your previous meeting. Back when a traffic study was done for the existing now Park Place private dorm at the corner of UG and Blossom, just the opposite corner from this project, they predicted that the level of service at the intersection that I just used today to get out wheat and UG would be reduced to the lowest level. That is a level of service F from a level of service D. Well, we've had years of experience and it is the worst level of service. You take your life in your hands going out of that intersection, crossing multiple lanes of speeding traffic coming south on UG Street to get to a turn lane to go into town or to straight lane to go north. So adding another slug of cars will undoubtedly hurt us. Now, the traffic study folks here, Ms. Cartman did a really conscientious job of thinking about other alternative mitigation measures. And indeed, one of those measures was barring left turns at Williams and Blossom. That is a cross from that Millennium Buffet, if you know where that is, near the Blossom Street Bridge, very dangerous intersection to make a left turn, particularly at rush hour. But if you bar rush hour left turns there, you force traffic to Catawba Street and that's why we came up with this idea of a light there, a signal. And DOT, you know, seemed to be mulling over that idea. But here's the deal and I'm going to offer you a series of messages that the developer has shared with me and I want to share with you for the record. And these are messages that basically I sawed in, I guess yesterday, but essentially reflect the meetings and discussions we had. Essentially what they say is that DOT might allow a signal at one of these three intersections. But they hedge all over the place with whether or not traffic volumes justify a signal, whether there's enough right-of-way, whether or not the city would approve it, whether or not the railroad will approve it, close to the railroad tracks. And here's our fundamental point. We support this project, but it needs to be conditioned on a mandatory requirement to have a signal at one of those three intersections. Not simply a promise that we'll think about it, try and offer resources, in their case very generous, $150,000. It's an $85 million project, so this is not a lot of money, but if any one of those other actors say no or obstruct getting a signal, there will be no signal. So here's the bottom line. We support granting the special exception only with a mandatory condition that a signal be installed at one of those three intersections before there's occupancy in the proposed VERV project. And here's the way I read it now. I think that your ordinance requires two things. First, you decide if there is a substantial adverse impact to traffic, and I think the only evidence you have is there will be, level of service F at that intersection. Then the alternative is you've got to mitigate or eliminate that adverse impact before, before you can have a special exception. It doesn't come after the special exception, it comes before, because it is a legal precondition to granting the special exception to have no adverse, no substantial adverse impact. So what I've said to my friend and colleague late in Lord and his clients is I support your project. My neighborhood supports getting a special exception, but you just got to agree that we got to get the signal, not just say we'll think about it, talk about it, hope we can get one, and pay for it if all of the stars align. If the stars don't align, we're just, you know, really facing that substantial adverse traffic impact that's going to take lives. I mean, when you dodge across multiple lanes of traffic to simply get into downtown, as we now have to do, I've been in one wreck already, I think I mentioned that last time, someone totaled my car, trying to make a left turn into my neighborhood. I don't want that to happen to me, but I also don't want to happen to the 960 college kids are going to be in this dorm when they run across the intersection or drive out to go to classes or party or what have you. So I think all parties deserve a mandatory mitigation measure here, which is a traffic signal on one of those three intersections. And the paper I just handed to staff here reflects an email chain that includes the DOT person essentially saying we can't require a signal, we don't require a signal, that if there's a demonstration of sufficient volume, we could support it. If there's an adequate right away of DOT, the city and the railroad approve it. There are all these uncertainties, even with the best effort over the last month, and I would urge you to grant the condition that we've described. I'd be happy to answer any questions, and I appreciate very much you tell me. We're having questions, Mr. John. Thank you, Mr. Ross. Thank you. Yep. Hope, can you just go back one slide on this? I just want to see, or maybe a second, what are the recommendations? Please. Thank you. I just want to have a quick rebuttal, Bob. Yeah. First, I don't think Bob's characterization of the requirements for special exception are accurate. Number three says the proposed special exception will not have a substantial adverse effect on vehicular or vehicular or pedestrian safety. We're looking at this project, not the existing conditions or what's going on in other projects. This is our project going to do that. Not that there's bad traffic in Columbia. And I think that's the analysis. First, I disagree. I think the park place traffic impact analysis is not really relevant. It's a different project. It's old. The relevant traffic impact analysis is the current one that was done for this project. And that's the one that SCDOT accepted. I can't tell you what traffic is all about, but I'll believe Liz and I'll believe SCDOT. And finally, SCDOT hedges, just like a lot of governmental entities hedge. But the one thing they said very clearly is we will not pay for it. We do not have the money to pay for it. So that's the first hurdle for getting Bob's light. And we said we would pay for it. So we can't control SCDOT. We can't control the city of Columbia. We can't console Norfolk Southern, but we took away the first hurdle to a light which is paying for it. And if we had accepted Bob's condition that every project had to be contingent on something that wasn't required by the facts, but was contingent on forces that you had no control on, nobody could do a project. Because we can't control SCDOT. We can try our best. We can fund it. We can push it, which we have done, but we can't control them. And we're willing to do everything we can to help with that light. But if it's contingent on that, no project can happen because no one can move forward. Thank you. Thank you. I guess that concludes presentation rebuttals. So I just want to thank y'all. I mean, Mr. Lord, developer, I want to thank you. I mean, y'all have made a tremendous effort to address some of the concerns. And I think the big concern we'll move into board discussion here real quick. And I think the big concern is item number three on special exception, the proposed will not have a substantial adverse impact on vehicular or pedestrian safety. We talked about this case at length last meeting. And I put a lot of weight on what DOT says. I mean, they're the experts. They're the hired engineers. They're the public authority. And I read through that traffic study last night and read through the email response from DOT. And I just I put a lot of weight on that. And when they say here it is from Ms. Campbell, SEDOT has reviewed the draft impact analysis for the first student housing development. As stated in the analysis, it is expected that the proposed land use will generate less peak hour traffic than the current land uses on the site. The development will, however, slightly increase traffic on some of the network roadways, primarily Williams and Wheat streets. The primary driver delays along these roadways and intersections is the existing traffic with minimal increase in delays, attributable to the development itself. We concur with the recommendations of the traffic analysis, which I think was important because it shows that the traffic analysis was done with some merit and not just willy-nilly. You know, they're agreeing with it and would require the following mitigations. So we talked about the and one question I didn't at we didn't talk about was the recommendations that DOT made. Mr. Lord, will you please come back up here? Well, let me just ask you one question. And has the board did y'all get a chance to review this? Yeah. So there were some other recommendations, the extension of the concrete median and they said and they would require the following mitigations. So extension of the concrete median along UG to create a continuous median from Blossom Street, to Wheat Street, reconstruction of all existing driveways along Blossom and UG Street to create continuous sidewalk and remove existing curb cuts, potential designation of a dedicated northbound left turn lane from UG on to Wheat Street using an existing roadway, installation of pavement markings along the western leg of Wheat Street to create desired laneage as well as pedestrian crosswalk, which would help with the pedestrian safety, installation of pavement markings on the southern leg of William Street to create desired laneage as well as pedestrian crosswalk. These improvements would meet the SCDOT requirements related to traffic mitigations for the proposed development. As always, the development will have to comply with all SCDOT standards and requirements related to driveway construction with drainage, et cetera. So I guess my question to you before we officially move into board discussion is the developer prepared to do those mitigations that DOT is going to require? Yes. Okay. All of them. Okay. Thank you. Hold on one second. Mr. Giles, Mr. Giles, Mr. Giles, we need to come to the podium if you want to speak, please. I'm sorry and hope. Yeah, I'll just state for the record that that slide and the, I think it was the previous slide were provided by the applicant and were requested that staff include those in the presentation today. Okay. I'm just going to say to you that I met your deadline yesterday of submitting written material and I had several phone calls with Layton Lord and shared with him the letter I was going to submit. I wanted him to know exactly what our position is because we've had basically a transparent and cooperative relationship. But this is sandbagging now. I did not receive the traffic study. I did not receive anything from DOT expressing their view on that traffic study. Understood. What's the proper procedure for letting the public know about this stuff about DOT? Just a general like what do we do then I Yeah. I mean beyond the typical posting and you know legal advertisement and everything. There's no. I guess Mr. Jobs I meant what I was I wanted to display to to you that it appears that they're doing everything they can they're meeting DOT requirements the DOT and I put faith in DOT I'm not the DOT you're not the DOT so they're the governing body and I don't know what else somebody can do other than meet their requirements. That's why I wanted to read it for the record. So saying that as a matter of fundamental due process I'm entitled to see and respond as a party that's being injured by what is being asked for by this applicant. I'm entitled to disclosure of the evidence that I have to meet their application and I've responded to everything that was made available to me and I submitted evidence last month that I believe makes my point. Now you may disagree conclude otherwise and Verve certainly is entitled to disagree but they're not entitled to sandbag the record for providing evidence that that the community that's adversely impacted does not have an opportunity to review and frankly I've had two conversations with this lawyer this afternoon he never mentioned that he had any of this material as I've while I've shared everything with him that we intended to submit. So I just want to say that I think I understand the process is flawed and it really does violate the due process principles of my question. I'm not query query if I could yeah Catherine was was the DOT you guys had a meeting right yeah and and DOT and the neighborhood and you all were yeah we're all there at that meeting was that traffic study not available at that time it was and I by about two everything you've asked for I sent you you want I said that SCDOT gave an email saying they'd kind of do a light we sent it right to you everything you've asked me for I sent you this is I didn't know I had the obligation a light Mr. Lord please we need to refrain from yeah talking I just I didn't know I had an obligation to give the public everything that my client had but everything that's been asked for we've handed over sure yes thank you Mr. Giles please would you've had your chance please just please sit down or come to the podium please if you want to speak one more time his objection is noted Mr. Giles your objection is noted your objection is noted all right I was trying to lead that into board discussion so I'm going to turn it over who else wants to Giles wants to have a comment captain or Celia yes we're officially in board discussion Celia please is either that there can or cannot be a student housing development like that's okay like at the base level right it's that we're looking the special exception is for the density and so it's the number you know is that additional density going to create more of an issue you know or we exacerbate the problem and so I think from that standpoint I think a lot of what we're hearing discussion about is the pure existence and so from my standpoint it's feeling like that extra density which at first blush feels like it like it would be a lot but in reality I don't think you're creating potential problem above what the base existence captain I I think that we've we've certainly seen that as you pointed out too the professionals have suggested that the impact is actually going to be less than the current impact and and I think that we're looking as Celia points out we're looking at the incremental change and that in fact the increment is a decrement it's a decrease in impact overall I certainly would love to see as someone who uses Granby Park I'd sure love to see a signal there at Kataba and that because it did be a wonderful idea and I think it'd be great if they could put you know fencing down or some things that people aren't turning willy nilly and all like that but I think that the developer has certainly gone above and beyond in terms of being willing to fund you know and and cooperate and doing everything they can to make it happen and the impact appears that it's going to be reduced it's only the special exceptions that's our obligation I although I agree what what the gentleman is talking about that represents a neighborhood association creating a binding agreement between the neighborhood and the developers is just not something that we have the latitude to do as as much as we may feel we we do I think it's our obligation to do the duty that the city has entrusted us to and that's to look at whether or not the special exception in this case for density they've done the traffic study for density it is our my hope that the developers and the community can be on the same page as far as what their needs are because I don't see the point of coming into a community and telling it what it needs when the community feels some of this type of way but this particular board our duties only maintain special exception permissions and for what the developers have done as far as our letter is concerned has been covered I don't know how much more our board can do to help the neighborhood's behalf that's my two cents Davis I feel that the developers have gone above and beyond to do what is required of them at least from what we saw last month I think by saying that they need to do more stuff that's out of their control it sends the wrong message and makes it just a little too challenging to get stuff done I think all that being said I think we do need to find a way to sort of capture some of the commitments the mitigation and the voluntary commitments because I think that makes a huge you know safety impact even for the residents you know to get across the street you're talking about the SEDLT requiring mitigation so they have here yeah yeah and and I was reading that because there were some other there were some other criteria the DOT some other things that they had required mitigations that hadn't been mentioned yet so I wanted to put those on the record to try to make the neighborhood Mr. Bob feel better about the DOT requirements they just haven't been mentioned yet so I tend to agree with you guys Do you want a motion? Please Katherine I will certainly entertain a motion I move that we approve subject to staff comments and also the inclusion of the required mitigations on the slide here include incorporated by reference that's it I guess that's my motion we have a motion do we have a what's that silly well in the voluntary commitment too I'm sorry the required mitigations and the voluntary commitment the I'm referring to the entire incorporating by reference this entire screen yeah I think you just have to restate it we restate it yeah yeah Katherine please I move that we approve subject to staff comments and the SCDOT required mitigations and sub subtext acquisitions LLC voluntary commitments contained on the slide that is in front of me at this point which will be hereby incorporated by reference we have a motion do we have a second second second we have a motion a second all those in favor say aye aye aye any opposed motions approved thank you second case is case number 2023-004-SE is for the 3,300 block of North Main Street at Sunset Drive is the applicant here all right please come to the podium how are y'all doing please state your name for the record can you get yeah closer to the mic it's really hard to hear it's Catherine Lloyd Catherine Lloyd my name is Charles White thank you good afternoon everyone we are here to request a special exception to permit AC store at North Main in Sunset here thank you for all of your time today and we look forward to discussing the over the last month we have met with the North Columbia Business Association to help answer some of their questions or concerns beforehand hopefully I can touch on some of those points we previously discussed with these groups for any of the public first they are quite a few circle K stores in the Columbia in our offering across the board the older stores we have tend to be smaller buildings and tighter lots with every new store we build to moving forward it includes our latest fast food fresh program a large convenient parking lot and an enhanced lighting facade for safety we acknowledge there is a lack of an immediate grocery offering in the area and we intend to provide a more expansive food program to the community to fill some of that void this includes breakfast and lunch items salads pizzas whole or slices snacks including refrigerated items such as yogurt cheese and protein boxes fruit and more we have put together a slide of some of these newer stores we have built in the Columbia MSA for reference to my last point safety is important to you all and is absolutely important for us as well when it involves our community our customers and our employees as part of the special exception process we have committed to the crime prevention and awareness program allowing for a police officer to periodically monitor the site in the neighborhood communication program meaning circle pay with provide contact information for our adjacent neighbors should there be any concerns our well-lit store in building intend to prevent any unwarranted activity at night but not so much so that it would impact any of our neighboring businesses safety is a priority for us and we understand the desire for everyone to feel that as well I'll keep it short sweet to be respectful of everyone's time here my position is special specializes in real estate so there are some operational questions that I cannot answer I am happy to get to the appropriate person who is local here in Columbia I'm a local as well and I live about 10 minutes away from the site thank you again I'll let Charlie add anything if all right well thank you for your testimony just because this is a new case I'd like to go through the special exception checklist for you on but it's in your packet so we have a checklist that we judge the special exception by the criteria and I'm just going to go and I don't want to make you repeat yourself but if you have those handy I would like to go down I'm just for the record so do you mind going number do you mind just starting with number one and just kind of going down for the record requirement number one the proposed special exception complies with all applicable zoning district specific standards in article three zoning districts number two the proposed special exception complies with all applicable use specifically yeah read your response to yeah yeah the comment and the response yeah please this is the proposed fuel station development complies with all applicable zoning district standards number two the proposed special exception complies with all applicable use specific standards in Article 4, use regulations, and our response is that our proposed fuel station development does comply with all these regulation standards for our use. Now the third proposed special exception, we want to have a substantial adverse impact on vehicular traffic or vehicular and pedestrian activity, and our response is the proposed fuel station will not adversely impact vehicle and pedestrian activity, required traffic studies will be completed and all applicable roadway improvements will be completed as part of this project. Number four, adequate provisions are made for parking and loading and unloading, and our response is that ample space and ample space on our development will be provided for all. The proposed special exception will not have a substantial adverse impact on enjoining properties in terms of environmental factors such as noise, light, glare, vibration, fumes, odors, obstruction of air, or light and litter. Our response is this development will complete, will complete photometric plans to comply with this requirement and will not adversely impact all properties through participation with convenience store condition programs. Number six, the special exception will not have a substantial, a substantial adverse impact on the aesthetic character of the area to include review of the orientation spacing of the buildings, and our response is the proposed fuel station development will spend ample time and effort to confirm the site layout and building blend with the community and do not adversely impact the aesthetic of the area. Number seven, the special exception will not have a substantial adverse impact on public safety or create nuisance conditions detrimental to public interest or conditions likely to result in increased law enforcement response. Our response is that our fuel station development will not have a substantial impact on the public safety through onsite management and participation with convenience store condition programs. Number eight, the establishment of the proposed special exception does not create a concentration or proliferation of the same or similar type of use, types of special exception use which concentration may be detrimental to the development or redevelopment of the area in which the special exception use is proposed to be developed and our response is that it does not create a substantial detrimental use of this area and that it provides a different use of this area and plans to be an integral part of this community. Number nine, the proposed special exception is consistent with the character intent of the underlying zoning district as indicated in the zoning district purpose statement with any applicable overlay zoning district or adopted plan goals and requirements and our response would be the fuel station is consistent with all zoning district and use standards for this area. Number 10, the proposed special exception is appropriate for its location and compatible with the permitted uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the property and our response is that it is compatible with the uses in this area and vicinity of this property. The proposed special exception is compatible with the general character of the district in which it is proposed. Our response is that it does meet the district character of the surrounding area. Number 12, the proposed special exception will not have an adverse impact on the land values of the surrounding properties and our response is that it will not adversely impact land values of the surrounding area and number 13, the proposed special exception will not adversely impact and will not adversely affect the public interest and that our response is that it will not adversely impact the public interest and provide a successful build. Thank you. Appreciate you doing that. I know it's a lot. Appreciate you on the record. I have a question. Go ahead, Kevin. Yes. Is this subject to a design overlay? And that's the north main overlay. And what's there now? So there's no building or anything else there. It's just... They can park a lot. Okay. The corner that's not part of the question is like a title, cash line thing. High lines. What's the... I have a question for you. The response to number eight is the proliferation. Do you know how many other similar locations are in the area and how far away there are? So exactly how many are we talking about within, say, a mile in either direction? Any direction? In less than a mile. Yeah. I can't even think of the next one around there. I can. Which one's your problem? Yes. Four of them in less than a mile in this location is the Valero, which is right up near the Michaels. Down... There's a speedy, maybe like not even a block away from there is a speedy. A block up from that is a Sonoco. And they all have convenience stores? They all have convenience stores. Yeah. Yeah. Because that's... I mean, gas stations don't count. It's only convenience stores. They don't count much anymore. Right. So do you think four is...? There's four I can see right here on the map. Yeah. And there's nothing on Sunset in either direction. It's only on Man. Yeah, not on Sunset. It's only on Northman. Okay. There's a convenience store up on Sunset of less than a mile away. Bucks, it's a fish inconvenience store. They also sell, like, tackle, bait. Oh, yeah. That's less than a mile away. That Valero is back in Northman. Yeah. The Valero is less than a mile away. Okay. All right. Wow. Okay. It's a lot of convenience stores in the area. And it's a family dollar right across the street. Okay. But I don't think it's board discussion time yet. Is it? I was asking questions. I was asking questions. So do you have any information on how far you think people travel to come to your store? Further questions for that? Thank you all for the testimony. Thank you. Is there anybody here from the public that would like to speak on this matter? Welcome. Good afternoon. Thank you. I'm a resident of the Hyatt Park Kenan Terrace neighborhood and have been since 1973. During these 50 years, our neighborhood has been patiently waiting for improvements to work their way into our part of town. During the last few years, we've seen this wish beginning to come true. I can cite the North Main streetscaping, Hyatt Park revitalization, Peak Drift Brewery development and the master plan by the City of Columbia Planning Department for the North Main Corridor. It is this master plan that I feel should guide us in making a decision about this special exception before the board today, as well as the 13-point checklist, which we just heard recounted. First the master plan. In section three, page 89, the plan suggests removing the old Scebo Newman service station that's been removed now to improve the aesthetics of this gateway to our community. As you know, that service station is gone, but replacing it with another, larger one, goes against the guidance of this master plan. Instead the plan suggests small retail uses adjacent to the intersection. As the master plan says, this is a gateway and its businesses should be inviting, convenience stores are rarely. Regarding this special exception checklist of the 13 comments required, this project is plainly incompatible with at least three. Number three, the no adverse impact on traffic. It's hard to see how this requirement could be accomplished by adding a high traffic volume gas station to the intersection, which the master plan calls one of the most heavily congested intersections in the North Columbia community. The next one, no adverse impact on aesthetic character. When have we ever thought that a 15-foot canopy with strong lighting would be an aesthetic improvement? And lastly and most importantly, and I can answer some of your questions about proliferation, it will be a proliferation of similar types of special exception use. There are two convenience stores with gas stations, two tenths of a mile. One of those you can see from that location, two more within a half a mile, and one more within a mile making a total of five within the mile. So it's nothing new, it is another concentration of convenience stores in the gas station. Thank you for your testimony. I have a question for staff. Yes. Now, when we're talking about the design overlay and master plan sort of things, is that us or is that the design review commission? So that would be our planning staff and the DVRC? So that's not within our purview? Correct. Correct. Say another gentle item, ma'am. Like I'm putting them. Thank you. Thank you. My name's Lyman Munson, and I'm the vice president of Hyatt Park Union Territory Road Association, and I'm the one who wrote the letter of opposition. And thank Basil for his comments about where we've been and where we're going on a long road to get to where we are on the road. It's just finished, what, $70 million? A lot of the improvements were at the nose. North Main, Sunset, anyone who rides on Sunset understands. We go from a two-lane road to four lanes, we go east, we go west, and then we go down to two lanes. And all those cars try to get into a single lane that are going on over the River Drach. So clearly there are vehicular issues. I think any time that traffic turns at the intersection, it slows traffic down. The turn just past the intersection into a fuel center, as it's referred to, proposed fuel station development goes slow traffic. So for the applicant to suggest in his responses that he may do a traffic study at some point in the future and will comply with whatever that is, that's not the basis of giving him exception. If you need the traffic study, you ought to do it now. The chance is just like previously, to understand what the traffic is. Anyone who lives and travels north on North Main, as I do today, come to work, it's even with the new road. That's crazy. At North Main, with this new proposed development, you see the speedway, there is a sign that says speed. It's a tenth of a mile. You go around the corner, I'm pointing it, but that can't really see on this one. But if you just go up, like this, and you continue, curve around the corner, this gas comes, there are 24 fueling stations, 24 vehicles in fuel lists, and you know what? Right now, we don't need it. Neighbors don't do it. We got plenty of gas, we got plenty of fuel. So to say that there won't be any of the 13 points of exception, other than number one and number two, I couldn't disagree with the applicants, why there will not be a problem with that. What we really want is development that builds on the master plan, starting in 19, 2010. We all came together as citizens, had this charade, whatever it was, at Columbia College, where we all talked about what it is we wanted to do. We came up with that to the villages and this isn't part of it. We never talked about what we need a big circle K with people. I appreciate they wanted it. There's a lot of traffic. I'm sure they'll sell a lot of gasoline, but it won't do anything for us, the people who live. So we're asking that you deny this exception. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak? Hey, please state your name. My name is Elvis Tinson, and I'm a member of the Hyatt Park community. Wonderful. Thank you. I've been there since 1980. I've seen a lot of changes in this neighborhood. You might lower your mic down just a little bit. I won't go over things that pretty much people have already said, but what Lyman just said was the special exceptions. Many of these, I don't know, did you get a letter from the Hyatt Park president? Okay. Yes, ma'am. She talks about the good neighbor clause, which has to do a lot with the type of businesses that are put in here. Yes, that's right. And as we've already shown in our neighborhood over and over again, these places are hotspots for panhandling, crime. There was even a shooting at one of the convenience stores that's not more than a mile from where this proposed place is. So you're bringing what he says about saturating. You're saturating our area with stores that do not help our neighborhood. So that one place right there is the other thing that I wanted to say. We talked about, I thought you mentioned a minute ago, Ms. Finner, about the designer really doesn't affect you. You guys don't have to deal with any of that sort of thing. And as far as zoning, y'all don't work together. Is that what I'm hearing? We're here to judge the use. Is the use compatible with the property? Right. Okay. So the City of Columbia Planning and Development came up with the Villages of North Main Plan. And part of that was the North Main Corridor Design Overlay. And I know that he said that in part, one of the exceptions here talks about any applicable overlay zoning district or adopted plan goals. A part of that review process in this plan, this on the City of the website, says that they have to, anything that requires a zoning permit must first obtain a certificate of design approval from either the DDRC or staff. And this includes changing current businesses or new construction. That's never been talked about. As far as we know, they have not done that. And I feel like that should be as part, as number, number nine on your design overlay. So that's an exception. They would have to do that. And they would have to do that. They would have to do that. Okay. Well, we would have talked about that one. So, and I agree with Lyman that most of these, they do not have not, they've done traffic study. They haven't done lighting studies. They haven't done aesthetic studies. Nothing else have they done to show us that they're going to be able to comply with these special exceptions for this business. And I would ask that you decline the special exception. What we've seen in these neighborhoods are convenience stores or alcohol delivery systems. And that's why you have so many people, loitering, crime, et cetera. We don't need it. But they still, beyond that, they don't meet this, these requirements. And I appreciate you listening to me. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I have another staff query. When the, when we pass these conditions and they do the good neighbor plan and it fails to be met up with others, is there a zoning enforcement? What would be the remedy for a neighborhood that was finding that the, there was loitering and all these things that weren't supposed to be happening? Any condition that's put on any sort of approval or whatever, whatever by the board is enforced by zoning staff. And we do have zoning inspectors. And so not meeting a condition of approval would be a zoning violation. So the neighborhoods could alert you to that and you would send out an inspector? Yes. Question. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on this matter or against? All right. I'm going to go to the applicant. Would you like a rebuttal? You have five minutes for a buttle. By saying with the design overlay in place, the part of that community or regarding the traffic, a traffic study is absolutely required as part of the set drive. The proposal is only right now. Traffic would not be taking a left on some of that to our site. And the full access should, I believe, over 400 feet from the intersection while distance enough. Can you show the site point? Yeah. Thank you. Yes. And just adding on to Catherine's points, there's taken some time to meet with community members and business associations as well with all the expansion going on in this area and development going on this area. That's what drives the idea for this site and being what we're proposing today. And we certainly are not trying to hide from any of those traffic study implications or anything. Yeah. Thank you. All right. At this time, we'll move into board discussion. I'll let someone else start it off first this time. I'll start it off for you. So, I mean, I, based on what our latitude is when it comes to special exceptions and the, I think there's two issues here with this particular proposal for a special exception. One is the amount of convenience stores or gas pumps that are already in the area. You either have a proliferation of gas stations, gas pumps with convenience stores or convenience stores without gas pumps, which this area already has. I think if you add the convenience stores without gas pumps plus the convenience stores without gas pumps, you get almost 11. So, I think that's that. I think just in good conscience and considering the comments by the neighborhood. There's still so many things are still waiting to get. I know one of the things that that area still waiting on is an actual grocery store because there is not one in a 1.5 mile radius from that location. And so I just don't think it's in good conscience for, for our board to vote for a special exception for something that kind of goes against the basic, some of the basic criteria that we have set. So that's my take. Any other thoughts? Yeah, I mean, I'll chime in briefly. I, you know, I'm not worried. I'm not going to say I'm not worried about the master plan or the, you know, intent of it. But I am worried about making sure that it meets all the criteria, the special exception. I don't feel like it does. So specific, the proliferation is just kind of obvious. Well, I see proliferation as an issue. I do think in terms of traffic, it sounds like what they're doing is merely capturing existing traffic. They're going to divert traffic into their thing that would have gone somewhere else. And in my experience, I go to the place on the right. So, you know, if I'm turning, if I were, if I were going to the hospital from Maine, I'm going to turn right and probably stop and get some gas there or pick up a snack or something. So I'm not so sure that there's an additional traffic there. I am concerned about number nine that it's consistent with the character intent of the underlying zoning district and any applicable overlay zoning district or adopted plan goals and requirements. And it just doesn't seem like it is. I mean, I gather that the reason they're citing it on the street is to get that front facing thing, but it's still not what they're looking for. I really wish we could get a grocery store up there for y'all. I really, really do. I just, everything I'm hearing is just not going to happen. But still, I'm sorry. We need a bigger site than this. Yeah, I know. But I do think I'm really concerned about the proliferation and I'm really concerned about the fact that it's really not compatible with the stated sign. Which is obviously within the purview of DDRC, but it's also number nine for us. That's a good point. Yeah, I mean, I, the one thing I'm getting hung up on and y'all, y'all convinced me was the proliferation. So sure, thank you for pointing out all those numbers. I can get past. I feel like through the design process, the development process, traffic, the aesthetics, all that could be met, but that doesn't overcome the proliferation. So sure, Celia. So I think we've hit on just about sort of all night from a business standpoint. I totally understand why you guys would put it there. I mean, as you were saying that right turn, I think the site plan that sort of highlights my biggest concern is the one where you can see the semi cut through. So when you think about pedestrian safety, and this is a really quick, you know, people. Main Street has been improved for vehicular traffic, the improvements were short-sighted in my opinion. And so when you think about a semi-whipping in off of Main Street, that's not encouraging. I didn't even think about that. Safety. And so I think they've done what they can do, you know, siding it on the street like Catherine mentioned. But just, again, to focus our thoughts on a convenient store, the gas station portion is, but there would still be that traffic. Pedestrian safety. Yeah. Yeah. Pedestrian safety and then the proliferation. So while, again, from a business standpoint, you guys, it would totally make sense for you that you would have plenty of business. But from our standpoint, the neighborhood does not, you're over the neighborhood at that point. Davis, you want anything? I mean, it would definitely be the nicest convenience store in the area. But that doesn't change the fact that there are so many of them within the one mile radius of there. So, you know, from the proliferation standpoint, I have a hard time thinking it would make sense to add another. And this one may take the business from the other ones in the area. Not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's just, you know, something to. It would be nice if the others were more aesthetically pleasing. Yes. It would. I mean, the Circle K on Elmwood is a beautiful store. They control the foot traffic and that's a huge. Yeah. All right. Well, I think that's some good discussion. So if this, just thinking where it's going, if this does get voted down that for 12 months, this use couldn't be seen here on this property again. The same request on the same piece of property could not be seen for 12 months. Okay. Thank you. So that being said, I'd like to hear a motion. I'm proud of a motion. Catherine. I move that we deny the applicant's request. We have a second. All right. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. The motion's approved. But the motion be denied. Not approved. The motion's approved. We're careful. Yeah. It's a little double. We got you. Yeah. I feel like you did a lot of practices. Moving on. Number three. Case number three. This is special exception 2023 008. Um, Fort Jackson Boulevard special exception to permit a multifamily development and zoning district. Oh, I would applicant. Please come forward for the record again. I'm going to accuse myself in this case as well. Lord of Nixon Pruitt for the applicant. And I promise this is the last time you see me today. I also have Mark James, who's this is a special exception to allow and permit multifamily. Although the project, the property is already zoned to allow more. This will be a 300 up to 300 unit class A apartment community with amenities and open space. And it's going to be a very nice high end project. The applicant FHT to original County LLC is controlled by, I think it's important to note that the applicant is essentially developing this in his own back. We believe that this project meets all 13 of the requirements for a special exception or Boza. It will have no adverse impacts on the surrounding areas. In fact, according to a lot of the neighbors and a great quote from the letter, Murray Kitt lives next door at Hampton Hills. He thinks it will increase the value of her house. She's very happy about it. It will not have an adverse impact on the public interest. This is currently open space. That's hard to control. There are several illegal encampments on it that the owner tries to keep off. This will allow this property to be better controlled and therefore have a better positive impact on the public interest. It's also conducive with the general character of this area. There's multi-family next door. There's multi-family across the street. It's a good area for multi-family. It's very close to the interstate. It's close to Fort Jackson. It's close to the city. It's close to the university. It's a great location. It's already a place where multi-family is. It will also not have an adverse public impact or an adverse impact on track. We believe it supports all 13 of the requirements. If you have any more detailed questions about the project. Okay. Yeah. Mr. James. Thank you. Chairman. Members of the Board, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. One thing I noticed on the plan that you put up, that Layton's done a great job of describing what it is. Let me real quick clarify what it's not. It does not include the hotel or the restaurant. The discussion is going, this is a conceptual land development plan made by Ken Simmons, a very capable landscape architect, but it was conceptual only in what we're here for. It would be a Class A project. A property owner who is part of the development team as well joins this. He loves to join this. His consistent mantra to me has been, it better be nice. I don't want to live next door. I would like to speak to number three on y'all's criteria, I believe, is the traffic. I know that in some of the emails that were sent in, some of the other conversations that have taken place, there's a concern about traffic. When we were doing the QT at the corner of the quick trip, at the corner where Fort Jackson Boulevard and our interest road exists, we had to go before the DOT and we went ahead and designed and planned that entrance for the development of the rest of the property. At that time, our high desire was to get a traffic signal there. As you can imagine, Quick Trip Corporation would like to have that. At the time we did not meet the criteria, we did a traffic, excuse me, not a traffic study, a signal warrants study provided to the DOT. The reaction was that it doesn't meet the criteria today, but any future development on the property will. We did not do a traffic impact study at that time because that was in 2020 and we were in the middle of it. And nobody trusted the information and the data to be reliable as far as forecasting. What we ended up doing with the DOT in March of 2021, we signed a memorandum of understanding between the property owner and the Department of Transportation that will require for any future development on this property a full traffic impact study with the anticipation that it will meet the standards of a signal, a full cost of the traffic impact study and the design and the construction and installation of that will be borne by the property owner and the Quick Trip lease as well as it is a funded signal. Once we were able to complete the traffic impact study, the assumption is we're going to meet criteria and hopefully that will alleviate some of the concerns about the traffic. I do know that from a pedestrian standpoint, I know that's a section 3. There are some residential areas across the street, some apartments, some other single families. Currently what we have is people across in the street to get to the QT and to my knowledge, we haven't had anybody hit by a car yet, but that's going to happen if we don't do something part of the intersection improvements here I'm sure will include crosswalks. Not only are we not substantially impairing the current traffic environment, I think we can make a strong case. I have personally met with the president of the Hampton Hill Condos Homeowners Association next door. He has shared this information with his board. I believe they shared it with their remaining residents. My understanding is that there's no substantial objection to what we're proposing. Layton made a reference to the person who was quoting the newspaper who said that she viewed it as a positive. A project like this with... She felt likely to be an enhancement. I've also met with the King's Grant Homeowners Association board and had several ongoing conversations. I know that they have had both a Facebook page notification of our project and the details shared this application specifically. I think initially there were some concerns when the idea was that we were including a hotel and a restaurant. I know there will continue to be concerns on their part about the traffic. I've shared with them the information on the traffic status. I hope is that largely they'll support it. That's a big neighborhood. I'd like to think what we did with the QT. We honored what we said we were going to do and that's turned out to be a bit developing. I certainly know that that's a regular spot for me and when I'm in there I see some of the folks that I know in the area. Hopefully this will be viewed as a positive. Any other questions? I'm happy to answer. This is a late in the reference. We have Robert Morgan here with Holmes Urban. They are part of the development team and more granular into what the design would be. It sounds like that's not something that we'll have to comply obviously with all the city code and requirements, the new zoning requirements. On a design standpoint we do also have to come back for final site plan approval to get more granular in the civil engineering and stormwater things like that and get more into the layout. I know we've got to tweak this plan. Some setbacks that are required. If there's any informational purposes desire on the old part of the plan and the project itself. Robert is going to have to share some of those details. Let me ask a question real quick. Y'all say 300 units. Do you know approximately how many beds y'all are thinking about? 270 I believe. 50% of them we've seen. Hey, hey. Please say your name. Robert Morgan. What's that? Sorry. I'm trying to do a quick math. A lot. It's about 900. About 600 beds. 450. 550. And do you know approximately what range you're looking for here? The most likely constant. What you're doing. Go ahead, Catherine. I'm sorry if you did mention it. Have you talked to the Brandon Acres people? Do they have a neighborhood association? Do you know? No. Looks like some of them are here. We'll hear from them. I'm looking in the memorandum of understanding what is Secuno Boulevard? Is that the little curvy thing that's coming along? That's the road. I have a question. And maybe I'm missing it here. But this particular spectrum is permitted multifamily. Is that right? But multifamily use is already permitted in this zone in district. So what's the special exception for? It's permitted by special exception. By special exception only. Got you. Thank you. Can I piggyback on that question a little bit? Sorry. Are they limited? Because it's reference to 300 rental units. And on the future site plan there's a restaurant and hotel. And that's all good. But we're not looking at the lots that were done. So in the future could they come back and put as many multifamily units on the six acres that they wanted to? Or would they have to come back? Yeah. So the base zoning district, are you referring to the density that they would be? It's sort of in perpetuity. Since they're not putting anything at the restaurant and hotel can they then go and put more apartments there? Correct. Because it's all one property. So under OI there's a 16.4 unit per acre density maximum. So as long as they did? Yeah. So today is a special exception for the use. But there are obviously going to be restrictions just from the base zoning district that they have to meet. Yeah. So we're only considering the 300 units on 6.2 acres with the density. Or are y'all taking into account the wetlands with that density? Designated by the Corps of Engineers and Wolfram Acres? What's your question John? The site itself is They're entitled to 16.9 units per acre and his question is, does that include wetland acres? And I guess the 6.2 like y'all will subdivide out the 6.2 acres. Because the site itself is 36 acres. The site is 38 acres about 7.5 or 8 acres is wetlands. So yeah, in the density calculation. They're divided in any way. If the undeveloped property. Calculation. I guess Hope, this is a special exception request for the use. If they were seeking a different density per what's allowed for the ordinance, they'd have to come back for a variance. So you can't request a variance on density. Yeah. So they wouldn't be able to request a variance on density. Okay. It is must be compliant because they're not requesting it sort of thing yet. Okay. Yeah, and we don't have site plans, you know, yet obviously with the details of units and things of that nature. Okay. That answers my, do y'all have any other questions on that? Thank you, Mr. James. Thank you. All right. Would anyone from the public like to speak on this? Hey, yes ma'am. Please state your name. Yeah, just pull the mic down here. Thank you. Darren of RS. Is that good? Yeah, perfect. Thank you. I'm sorry if I seem a little anxious. I have to pick up my daughter from daycare in a few minutes. So I was hoping we got to be before we could do this. But I'm here to oppose the request. I am a homeowner at the corner of Cedar Terrace and Woodlawn. And if you look at the map that they submitted. So that gives you a queue of how close it is. The green border along which you see those three apartment complex. That is Woodlawn Avenue, which is a street composed entirely of single family brick branch houses. And so when they say that it's consistent with the neighborhood, it may be consistent with the development 30 on the other side of the 30 acres along Fort Jackson, but it's absolutely not consistent with the development along Woodlawn. And if you look at the how close those buildings are, they're proposing to build within 30 feet of our property lines on Woodlawn. Because the rest of the site is a wetland that they can't build on. So they're telling you they're going to be shoving all of this development right up along Woodlawn where it is not consistent with our neighborhood. Our neighborhood was not consulted. We were not informed in any way up until there was a news story where they happened to interview one of our neighbors. And the reason this is especially concerning to our neighborhood is if you remember two months ago in January we moved an apartment complex for the Drake Street project. That apartment complex also used Cedar Terrace as an egress for the apartment. And the road that is marked as the gated emergency access is Cedar Terrace. So this is using the exact same street as you approved 150 apartments on two months ago. And now they're coming back for another 300 apartments. So in our census tract we only have 2,500 houses in our census tract. 450 apartments being requested to be added to a 22,500 census tract. That's an 18% increase just in those last two months worth of approvals. If you look at our actual neighborhood in the Brandon Acres Cedar Terrace neighborhood there's only 370 houses. So they're proposing to add 300 unit apartment complex to a 370 unit neighborhood. So they cannot possibly say that's not a proliferation of a certain type of special exception to put these multi-family 450 multi-family units in the course of two months 300 in just this one proposal. That's clearly a proliferation that's not consistent with the neighborhood. The second thing I want to tell you, we talked last time about how stable our neighborhood is. It's 68% owner occupied. So if we go from a 68% owner occupied neighborhood with only 14% change, and this is from the American and Community Survey study, that's very much more stable, much less moving than the majority of our city in our county. So to put a 300 unit neighborhood neighborhood apartment complex another 150 that clearly outnumbers the existing owner occupied neighborhood character our neighborhood's been there since 1958. So to have that much change, a consistent neighborhood from 1958 and make such a massive change to it in such a short period of time without even as they as they admitted talking to our neighbors and our neighborhood association that is not compatible to me with the purpose of this board and the purpose of the city. So I just think that that is that alone on the numbers alone should tell you that this should not be approved. But the second thing that I want to tell you is I bought a house in this neighborhood. I bought a house on the corner of Woodlawn and Cedar Terrace because I like that I could open my door and see what's going on in the neighborhood. So I just want to tell you that this is a neighborhood that lives on this property. As I said, it's a wetlands. We've got deer. We've got turtles. We've got all these things. We've got chicken backyard. I have fawns being raised in my yard that my daughter has been able to look out the window and see fawns coming across the yard and eating my blueberries. And that's the type of neighborhood we are. We're not a neighborhood where we have a multi-story apartment complex looming over. They'll be able to see what we did on Woodlawn last year. And you can see these trees, that's the apartment. The one that they're saying is going to be near the gated emergency access, this is the house they're building it behind. Where these trees are, that will be the apartment they're building. And I promise we did not stage this legitimately as our Easter egg that we did on our block. But this is what you're replacing. You're replacing this with apartments. You need to consider that. Thank you for your testimony. Would anyone else like to speak? Please come forward. Thank you. My name is Cameron Rast. You have to forgive me. I'm not quite as prepared as Sarah here. She's actually just learned about this last night. Because I was not solicited by the developers or anything like that to speak on. They didn't ask permission or anything like that. They didn't ask my opinion on this new development. That being said, I've been in this neighborhood for probably a year now. I moved here because I'm from a little town called Cameron South Carolina. If you guys are familiar with the area, I'm a small farm town. I moved in the area because it was a little bit of a mix of city and home. I've got the woods surrounding me which is really nice. I moved here because I like the convenience of course and I really like the neighborhood. I've met multiple neighbors who, a few of them unfortunately couldn't be here today. I had to work. I took some time off work to come over here. I do want to say that I believe this new development is a direct violation of these special exceptions here. Namely the vehicle in the track that gentlemen spoke earlier. There's not been many traffic studies. I believe that obviously you're talking about parking complexes. Yes, that's going to be a giant adverse effect on the traffic in that area. Of course the adequate parking. I don't know if you guys have actually physically been on the property itself. I got permission from Mr. Finley himself who owns the property I believe to walk the property. Again, I'm a country boy at heart so I like to walk to the woods. Sarah mentioned the deer earlier. I love looking at the deer. I actually feed them some corn out and I get to wake up to them every morning. It's really, really awesome. But I walk the property and walking through there it is a very, very hilly piece of property. You see up here with the wetlands area it is. It's very, very mushy, very nasty in there. Just to provide any sort of adequate parking there I think it would be very, very difficult. It would certainly ravage the land to really get any sort of additional parking in that area there. I know the gentleman mentioned earlier about vagrants in the area that he said there were multiple vagrants. That is absolutely false. There was only one actually and I reported him to Mr. Finley himself. A friend of mine said one of my walks through there I noticed a there's literally just one person in a portion I believe they are one of our veterans. I can only assume that of course but I know many of the many are veterans and I think the adverse effect on the adjoining properties I absolutely believe that would be an adverse effect. I moved in this neighborhood because it's a very, very nice well kept neighborhood. Thankfully we don't have many problems in that neighborhood. I think we've only had the police called in that area maybe once to my knowledge and that was just due because someone thought fireworks were blasting out in the area. There was a gunshot. But the aesthetic of the area like Sarah said earlier you're putting apartment complexes right in the middle of the woods which is very, very pretty. I really, really myself just enjoy being close to the woods like that. The effect on the course of public safety like Sarah said earlier we're going to have another apartment complex that's in our neighborhood that will be an absolute issue of public safety. If you've got a secondary emergency access here you know if there's an emergency in the area and we have to evacuate everyone you know this would be a major traffic problem to get out of there. Again going back to the point number three the vehicles and traffic that's going to be a problem. The land values in the area of course I think it's another one that would certainly yes I understand that the young lady that was spoken to she owns I guess an apartment at one of the local apartment complexes yes her property would absolutely probably go up in value. Mine however would not. I would move into a house and walk out the front door and see a giant apartment complex sticking right up in the front. I'm sure none of you folks would really walk out your front door and see something like that. That would be a terrible detriment to my property value. Again I'm a salesman myself so I understand the value of property and fairly young guy 36 years old I look forward to starting my family in this neighborhood but like I said I just try to tug at your heartstrings as best I can because I know obviously pumping new money into Columbia is a great thing I think it really really is but doing it in this way on this particular piece of property I just feel like it's not a very good idea. I would also like to to motion that I'd like to work with the developers if we could maybe come up with some sort of common ground. You've got my house I'm literally right across the street from Sarah's I spoke earlier I'm literally right across the street if we could propose something where you build apartments on the north side of the property there don't build on the very hilly the dangerous area close to where it's listed here maybe we're the restaurant or hotels listed that'd be a great spot to stick some hotels I would certainly be open to working to move that forward but as it sits right now the proposed plan right here is I don't think very profitable for at least anyone in Brandon Acres. With that I appreciate your time and look forward to Thank you Mr. Rast. Anyone else in the public would like to speak? Please come forward. Thank you. Hey. Can you all hear me? Yes ma'am. My name is Julie Gileo It was the last name? Gileo. I live in the King's Grant neighborhood which is across I moved here in 2018 I come from Connecticut New York area and our zoning is just a little bit different we are very into making sure that the community kind of exists as the community is and here and I love Columbia don't get me wrong I kind of find like things are just built into one another but there isn't a lot of logic in how things are done and I do I am from Stanford Connecticut which is a very similar city to Columbia and the community has really done a great job with the administration to make sure that the community stays intact putting all that aside it's an empty lot to stay and look at it and say what would I want there I don't want a hotel or a restaurant I think I don't know I wasn't aware that the community was backing up to it I wasn't aware that there were apartments that were being built over there so I'm glad I came tonight because I kind of felt like I was told or I learned what was in my bubble of Kings Grant but there's really more to the situation than just sees there so I just want to kind of give you the Kings Grant perspective traffic I know we talked a lot about traffic I actually have my phone I drove down it today there was a man crossing from the QT there was a car parked in the middle there's always a car parked in the middle across from QT sometimes we have 18 wheelers on the side there is no crosswalk from Kings Grant all the way to Fort Jackson all the way to what do you call that, Gornes Ferry so if you really want to make it a community where people can walk because imagine you don't want them driving you want them to walk to Marshalls you want them to walk to PetSmart you want them to walk to the food line they want to eat dinner at Applebee's you want them to walk if you're just looking at the traffic light intersection right there you really look beyond that point because I would prefer people not getting in the car they may want to make a nice night out so that's the comment with the traffic I think the light is great but I think it kind of has to go just beyond that kind of to where all the shopping is to make it more of a community the only other thing that I wanted to bring up was the school aged children situation, well and also traffic I wasn't an accident anyway I was T-boned at 77, something has to be done with that traffic light people don't get it and finally school aged children really has to be considered because they will be going to the local public schools and we have the same problem in the city of Stanford as the community grew the kindergarten first, second, third schools significantly increased so it's just something that has to be considered because the Board of Education really didn't like plan for that once these communities were brought in alright is there anyone else who would like to speak yes ma'am please come forward thanks for sticking with us thank you for having me and thank you for listening to the comments my name is Catherine Lockhart I'm the resident of King's Grant and like Julie said I'm glad I came because I've learned a little bit and I view this as an opportunity for y'all to learn a little bit too and just information gathering as you make your decision what Julie said about being T-boned right there at 77 Fort Jackson Boulevard right there at the intersection with 77 is incredibly dangerous we do have tractor trailers sometimes parked in the middle of the road and the inlet and egress I guess the merge lanes you want to say sometimes they're parked along Jackson Boulevard and I don't know if those are tractor trailers or if they're parked there because they're you know need a rest break or whatever it could be any reason but there is a lot of traffic that backs up on Jackson Boulevard all the way back down towards Kilburn Road most of them are trying to turn left on to 77 heading north so it creates one long kind of log jam we can get around it we know how to get around it to get into our neighborhood but it can be tricky right there it can also be tricky if you're coming out of Fort Jackson trying to make a left hand turn to get on to 77 heading south one of the comments that was presented by the developer is an assumption that DOT is going to come in and do a traffic study and put a stoplight there that's an assumption I don't know that that's a guarantee I don't know if we can guarantee that this development is not going to happen without some type of change another thing to consider is we brought up carnal crossing as an example which is a great development traffic on course drive is insane and sometimes kind of prevents people from actually using the amenities that we have there but they also did have a traffic pattern change and there is a stoplight there and it probably went through some sort of approval process and maybe there were businesses that were happy about it maybe there were businesses that were not but something changed there when that apartment complex was built I was in favor of QT being developed there I love the QT I use it but it is the Wild Wild West right there and we're talking about adding another 300 units how many vehicles I don't know how many vehicles come in and out of that access right there but it's a lot but I don't 300 times 1.5 vehicles per unit that's gonna be another in and out right there we just need to keep people safe and that's something that people have to think about we have to keep the people that are already using that avenue safe and then if this does go forward how we're going to keep the residents in that area safe y'all have a lot to consider this isn't as simple as this is gonna be a really nice apartment complex I'm sure it is it won't be brand new forever though and we have to plan for the future we're making those decisions and also taking into consideration the neighbors that are already there that have purchased homes in Cedar Terrace and that's a lot to consider so just here to speak for y'all so you can help get some more information thank you for your time alright do we have any other members out public that wish to speak on this case okay seeing none applicant y'all certainly heard some concern but yeah I appreciate very much all the comments and very much appreciate the forces one group you can't get in touch with my personal belief is that it's a lack of information can you go back to the plan to address a couple of things the gated emergency access is going to be a requirement of the fire department that's going to be a code require access point it is not intended to carry traffic in any circumstance other than the orientation of this so you're saying basically that fire engines can get in and put out a fire if it happens to be one we've only got this one entrance here that's why that's required the intention here this entire project is oriented towards Fort Jackson Boulevard and so the intention is not to have any impact on the thing I would offer to you today we still have to go through the final civil engineering and get site plan approval through the planning commission the person who we were making an effort to reach out to that we thought represented this area was our point of contact obviously is not what I would offer is let's find a time to talk about what we can do for buffering and for tweaking our plan that will minimize the impact we've got eight or nine houses that are directly on the property line and I understand there are other houses across the street that have been impacted by this and so let's as we get further into and priority going before the plan allow us an opportunity to collaborate more with them help with their concerns couple of folks have mentioned the traffic on Fort Jackson Boulevard I just will reiterate and clarify that we have a memorandum of understanding that is signed with the DOT and the property owner that traffic impact study will be required with our project in the event that we meet the criteria for a traffic signal which fully anticipate that we are that cost will be born by the developer of the apartments the owner of the QT as part of this project that is not a DOT sitting around a room saying well we think we could do a signal here but we don't have the money for it I don't disagree I live not too far from here and that is in my regular path of travel a lot of friends in King's Grant I go through here a lot and I do agree that traffic can be improved and one of the ways I think it can be improved is through the signal in addition to that pedestrian crosswalks as part of that will be helpful property is wetlands are delineated those are going to stay the same ideas that we are going to walk trails through there we view that as a positive we view that green space as a positive that is an enhancement to the property that doesn't fit in the area and then the other thing I would add is that if you look at good urban planning you look at good use of property this is textbook the largest property has interstate 77 that is a typical transition that you are going to see from a less dense suburban single family neighborhood to an area that carries a lot of traffic an interstate heavily traveled interchange we are not changing the traffic that is there today in any kind of meaningful way I think our improvements will make it better and the fact matters what people are describing I don't think our project here in a meaningful way the amount of traffic that is going on out of 77 and then the final just point of clarification is that quicktrip is not a truck stop it is not set up it does not have a capacity to serve 18 wheelers and large trucks it is a typical urban type automobile trucks that are on Fort Jackson Boulevard are not getting off and coming to the quicktrip because it is a truck stop they are coming because they are going this is an area town that is close to now approaching the urban center where we live in but I think our project here contemplates some improvements there as well as describing the response to an idea I will share one funny story with you two years ago right when we were starting the project I got a phone call I got to know the folks that live in the condos next door and I got a phone call from the president of that condo association who said you need to get over here we have a guy who is beer hunting on this property he had come through the condo association and entered the backside of this property he was trying to he had a shotgun in his hand he was trying to scare up deer to shoot so I mean I understand the pleasantness of the property and certainly the property understands that as well but there is this hopefully would create some activity there obviously y'all know what's happening behind this and again would just reiterate the desire to work with Brandon Aker I have a question so thank you for being here today to speak on this matter I just want to make sure am I hearing correctly you said that you want to talk more with the neighborhood before you all well we still would pursue to ask for today's approval of the special exception I just recognize that what we have to do is there's another step to this process that we have to get site plan approval from the planning commission what we like to do is to know that our intended use of the property level is viewed as compatible before we start getting into the site planning, the civil engineering architectural work traffic study all that stuff is terribly expensive if there's some fault that this property on a grand scale doesn't meet the criteria for a special exception then we've got the planning commission there will be another opportunity for the public to be heard on the site plan approval and the planning commission and really it probably technically is some of the concerns will be a little more appropriate once we get the design further down the road got you somewhere in that period of time before we get too far down the road on our design civil engineering have a question do y'all have any idea what the targeted demographic would be in terms of families young professionals maybe from South Carolina or what the rough age group for a project like this urban infill project like this we expect all ranges I asked that just around the point that was brought up earlier about the schools and children additional folks moving here having kids in school thank you guys thank y'all alright so this time yeah let's let's go on a board discussion I just have a quick thought and kind of piggyback on what Mr. James said just when you have dense or more dense multifamily I mean you want those cars and vehicles going on to arterial roads such as Fort Jackson Boulevard a road that can handle the capacity I certainly understand the concerns of the brain and acres and if the traffic was going through their neighborhood I could certainly understand the that being a major concern but it interchange next to the interstate I mean this is where you want something from a vehicular standpoint this is where you want something like this so that's just a thought any other thoughts Sherard I do I think what's sticking out to me here is 6 and 11 I think I think they may be needing a little bit more time what's sticking out to me here is the substantial adverse impact on the aesthetic character of the area particularly when you talk about the space in the buildings with that neighborhood that's on that back end there as well as 11 if you're looking at the general character of the district there so I think and it sounds like to me the developers willing to work with the community to figure those two things out so I think when we're talking about aesthetic character we're talking about spacing for buildings I just think it probably needs a little bit more it probably needs a tool a little bit more there and what I'm hearing is the developer sounds like he wants to work with the neighborhood to try to figure that out because I do think this I don't even know if it matters but I think this is a good development and I think ultimately our job is to kind of figure out the exception does it kind of work for both parties as best as it can I don't know if but I think also the developer is telling us they're still really early in the project so they still have a lot of work to do they're just trying to see whether or not this can actually get done so I think if they spend a little bit more time working with the community and maybe came back with a design that kind of spoke to some of the community's needs I think this would probably be a great project for Columbia I think it's just kind of early and probably need a little bit more work that's just my two cents I guess the first thing I'll do is my little folksy bit which is I grew up in Aiken outside of Aiken when they threw up the Savannah River plant in laboratory the bomb plant they threw up a subdivision that was kind of surrounded by forest and woods and fields and some farmers field was nearby and stuff and we ran around in there and asked kids we ran around everywhere and bit by bit it's been developed and there is now pretty much no field accepting a little horsey area but basically it's all developed over time so you don't have an automatic right to woods and land that you don't own so that's the it's hard when it happens and your kids can't run around in it and like that but you don't have the right to it right now of right they can put a factory there they can put as long as that factory does not have an adverse impact of noise, lights, glare, vibration fumes, odors, obstruction of error light and litter they can put a factory there of right and that factory could be you know a quiet factory but it's going to have shifts and those shift people are going to pour out versus as we learned on the previous housing project housing people come and go you know sort of different times and places and so on so I'm not as concerned about that in terms of I think people saying well nobody wants to live in an area with apartments mixed in with them and all like that I live in university hill and we have I look out across the street from me is an apartment complex owned by the governor well the governor is wife but we have apartments all around us but we also have single family houses many of which are very well maintained and very old properties that are that have been sold in the upper six figures not mine not in our house but others so I think you have a lot of different things going on here in terms of the schools and traffic we've gotten letters about traffic on kill born road and Brennan and that I mean I think that's beyond our purview and in terms of the schools I mean that's the Department of Education is going to figure it out they're going to redistrict if they have to do to make sure that there's enough schooling that's enough schools there so I don't I think that in terms of the things for our purview I think that that it'd be really nice it is a shame that they didn't get a chance to meet with the Brandon Terrace Cedar Acres people ahead of time Cedar Terrace whatever that is Brandon Acres Cedar Terrace neighborhood ahead of time but it does seem for the most part that this is a fairly it's the lowest a pretty low impact use compared to what they can put there of right without coming to us at all they can you know Kirkman could put a pack right there Celia I think within that MOU I think that was a great thing to sort of think about is because on that site plan there was an office building there was a convention center you know crammed up against that neighborhood and so from from use standpoint because the use is what we're looking at today I feel like that is compatible it's residential feel to that I definitely think the neighborhood is in their best interest to see this project through other boards that you know we're going to address their specific concerns more from our standpoint multifamily at the sort of scale appearance that I think that this is going to go for it doesn't feel for this particular site again because you're at a major intersection here Davis what you think I agree with what Catherine was saying you know you move into a neighborhood and there's a bunch of forest next to it it's really nice to have and to look at but you don't have any right to use that as somebody who doesn't own it unless you're given permission from the owner and you know I would just hope that these two or three buildings that do back up to the neighborhood that there would be some work done to ensure a buffer so from you know your yards in that neighborhood you would still get to see for the most part greenery and trees but I agree with what everybody else is saying is that this is probably the best use of what all could possibly go here so No I'm pretty good I mean I just think I mean like I you know I'm just thinking about as far as what our role is you know whether or not there's trees there or you know that's kind of out of our purview our purview is what's the special exception that says that we can do as far as moving forward on this project or any project and just based on the information that we have here today 6 and 11 just seem to stand out to me and I think if 6 and 11 are standing out and we have the developer saying hey we want to work with the neighborhood then why not allow them more time to do that because I think this is a great project too and then maybe come back with whatever they think design you know whatever they need to do to work with the neighborhood to fix those issues but I do think a multifamily could work here but I just think they got some design issues they need to discuss with the neighborhood to work with the neighborhood because if it does go through I guarantee that neighborhood is going to come out cold man, kings grant for sure you better believe it they're going to come out for the site plan but I do think in terms of the orientation and spacing of the buildings and that I'm not sure it doesn't look overly dense to me it looks pretty light we don't really even have plans yet we don't even really have plans yet to really tell all we have is this drawing yeah Erica so I was just going to say or just remind you that staff will be reviewing some of those things like buffers, landscaping and we do have a form and design section in our ordinance now so those things will be reviewed prior to planning commission okay that's great neighborhood compatibility as well but you'll be reviewing that but I don't think it's fair to ask the developer again we've already done this on a previous project nothing else is making it a very long that's not relevant agreed so with that would anyone like to make a motion if not I want to I'm going to make a motion that we approve this special exception to permit a multifamily use within the OI district subject to staff comments yeah just subject to staff comments second all right we have a motion and a second all those in favor say aye aye any opposed opposed all right motion approves thank you great we have one other item on the agenda and that's the elections from last time oh yeah last year but John did you yeah I'd like to remove you want to remove your name from consideration yes okay alright so Katherine Finner is our new Vice Chair alright hard fought battle there yeah I'm going to move to adjourn the meeting second all those in favor say aye aye adjourned