 to an overview of the project, case history, and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant, such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the Planning Commission or staff regarding requests. During the public comment period, members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns in intervals of two minutes. And after the public comment period, applicants have five minutes to respond. The administrator has a timer and will make presenters aware when their time has expired. And the Planning Commission reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case-by-case basis. And then are there any changes to the agenda? There are no changes to the agenda this month. Thank you. All right, so the Planning Commission uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by single motion or vote and vote. Examples of such items include approval of site plans, annexations, and street names. If a member of the Planning Commission or general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, you must speak up after the consent agenda is read. Then that item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the meeting. The Planning Commission then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Okay, thanks. I'll read through the consent agenda. The first item is to approve the October 30th, 2023, Annats. The second item is a future land use map amendment and a zoning map amendment for appending annexation. This is annex dash 2023 dash 0023 103.07 acres on both sides of Circle View Road and 21.9 acres on the west side of Circle View Road. Request recommendation on the assignment of land use classifications of urban core residential small lot one and transitional sensitive lands and the assignment of zoning of residential single family small lot district three portions within the flood plain overlay district and the floodway overlay district for appending annexation. The property is currently classified as mixed residential high density in zoned RU and RSHD by Richland County. Is anyone here to speak about the Circle View Road case today? All right, moving along. Case number three is annexation, annex dash 2023 dash 0024.04 acre portion of 702 Percival Road. Request recommendation on the assignment of land use classification of urban edge mixed residential and the assignment of zoning of residential mixed district one for appending annexation. The property is currently classified as mixed residential high density in zoned RMHD by Richland County. Is there anybody here to speak about the case at Percival Road? And the next case on the consent agenda is a zoning map amendment ZMA dash 2023 dash 0017 for 1213 Pickin Street. Request recommendation to rezone the property from downtown activity center district in the city center overlay district to mixed use two in the city center overlay district. Is there anybody here who wants to speak about the case at 1213 Pickin Street? All right, thank you. Is there anyone from the planning commission or the public that would like any item removed from the consent agenda for discussion? With that, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda in the minutes from October 30, 2023. Thank you. Do we have a second? So, and all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Ayes have it. And I'll move on to the regular agenda. We use the following outline for the regular agenda items. The administrator will introduce the case and the applicant will have 10 minutes to make a presentation. The planning commission may ask questions. The public comment period will be open to those present. The public comment period will be closed and the applicant will have five minutes to respond to the public comments. Planning commission may ask additional questions of the applicant, deliberation and action of the planning commission will follow. Okay, so the first and only case on the regular agenda is a zoning map amendment. This is ZMA-2023-0016 at 480 South Pickin Street. This is request recommendation to rezone the property from Employment Campus District and the Airport Safety Overlay District to Mixed Residential District RM-2 and the Airport Safety Overlay District. This is 1.67 acres currently vacant. They are proposing residential townhomes and the staff recommendation is that the proposed rezoning request would be considered a down zoning since the zoning classification would be going from a district that allows commercial uses to a district that allows only residential uses. Staff finds that proposed zoning classification of RM-2 is consistent with the adopted area plan and with the future land-juice classification and recommends approval of the request. And I believe the applicant is here. And would you guys like to present? Commissioner, thank you for your time this afternoon. My name is Jeff Coon, a partner with Stratus Development Group with Deep Family Roots in the area. We've been working in Columbia for years now on this particular site since 2016. Shut the shutters off. If you could speak into it. All right. We fill the site as an ideal candidate for a number of highly needed infill homes. This will both increase the availability and quality of the housing stock and also help to slow down the suburban sprawl and keep the tax base in the city of Columbia. Unfortunately for such a small project we have been throwing a few curved balls. Actually during the course of permitting we found out that the code had changed and hence we're here today to seek a rezone on the property. Our use is actually allowed in the current zoning but a provision was added that only base residential districts within the airport overlay zone can have residential units in them. I'm considering this. We're looking to rezone this portion of our site to RM2 which matches the current zoning found on the remainder of our parcel. All the parcels to the north and west are also zoned RM2. Our site split zoned with both RM2 and EC zoning present. We own the small sliver on the left side as well. The reason I would clean up the zoning on that parcel is split zonings rarely ideal, especially on such a small site. We're not looking for any modifications to the airport overlay which would remain in place. I understand Hamilton Owens Airport has concerns about any development in the Rosewood area and we're happy to comply with any additional covenants and deed restrictions that they have requested during permitting to ease those concerns. Existing EC zoning allows for building up to 75 feet in height and a down zone that we're requesting actually lowers that to 50 feet. And regardless of what any zoning allows, we're not looking to build anything over two stories which would mimic the development pattern in the area. A portion of the site was formerly surplus land for the Columbia Housing Authority. Both them and HUD have both signed off the project to allow it sale and release to increase housing stock in the area. Similar new boutique developments along Superior Street, Osceola Street and Sloughda Avenue have all been very well received and proven to be a good fit with the community. We hope this is not a big ask and eager to move forward on the project. Thank you for your time and we hope to have your support. Thank you. Any commissioners have any questions for the applicant? I have you got like a lay out a site plan. You said there's proposed town homes going here. I mean, what are you putting here? I mean, have you guys gone that far? You said you've owned it since 2016. We have put together some plans and roughly it lays out along with the small triangle on the left. It makes nearly a perfect rectangle and essentially a very small boutique town home community with a cul-de-sac in the middle. I think we went through, can I have a question for staff? We went through this, I think on another project a while back, site plan would have to exceed a certain number of units to come before us. Right, for site plan review would need to be more than 24 residential units. And we do try to make the rezoning requests separate from an actual development plan. Just because the zoning needs to be appropriate for the site regardless of what is currently planned just in case things change. So, but they will be obviously having to go through the permitting process and staff level reviews when they get to that point. And this may be another, would they be allowed to exceed those number of units on the site if it fit? Yeah, so with town homes in the RM2 district, it actually has an unlimited density of town homes. So, I mean, it's what they're proposing. They could do a lot more than that. I guess what are you proposing? You got a number of 20 town homes so they would be below that threshold. Okay. Do any other commissioners have any questions or? Thank you. Thank you. Are there any members of the public that would like to comment? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am Chris Eversman. I'm the program manager with the South Carolina Aeronautics Commission and formerly the general manager of the Jim Hamilton LB Owens Airport. I'm here to address the zoning map amendment case study for 480 South Pickin Street, TMS number 11212-0606. In assessing the compatibility of development near airports, especially beneath runway approach surfaces, local planners, developers and airport commission staff use the compatible land use evaluation or CLU tool. This online tool allows proposed development project stakeholders and projects to be reviewed against best practices for development in close proximity to our airport infrastructure in order to ensure project compatibility for all stakeholders. Our staff evaluation of this requested rezoning is cause for concern and we would hope that the Planning Commission would consider the following. And I will say that my comments here are based on the proposed project plans. The developer is proposing 23 bedroom apartments on a 1.67 acre parcel. The parcel is located on the approach slash departure path for runway 1331, not far from the extended center line of the runway. We are concerned that approving this rezoning request and moving forward with the development such as this, residential density, especially easily 60 to 80 residents so situated is not advisable. Our concerns are first and foremost based on the safety of persons on the ground but also the presence of aircraft noise beneath runway approach and departure paths. A CLU tool analysis for this project was sent electronically to the city's planning staff on November 1st, although it does not appear to be mentioned or referenced in the zoning map amendment case summary. In it, the above concerns were referenced, although a finding of conditionally compatible was made with land use being the problematic area. Finally, section 55-13-5 of the South Carolina Code of Laws requires local permitting agencies to provide written explanations of each finding comment in the CLU tool analysis. Thank you for your consideration. May I ask you a couple of questions through that? Thank you. What is the? I appreciate you coming and talking to us about this. One of the questions I have, we've done some development along Superior Street and there was a different software we had to submit through for coordinates with the FAA. So the- For the heights? Yeah, the height is not the concern. Okay. And when I say it's not the concern, again, the project as shown in the conceptual plans, I believe are compatible. There will be as development progresses and you actually get into construction, there's a requirement for a formalized height study to be done by the FAA. And that process is done through the submission of what is called a 7460 form. Again, our concern at this point, based on what we're talking about is not height. We believe that height will be height to be below the approach surface airspace will be complied with. Our concern is just the proximity and really the density. And what we had said in our CLU tool finding was that if the desire was to move forward with a residential rezoning, that it be a less dense zoning designation. Is there a standard threshold in that evaluation that says- In the CLU tool, we recommend low density zoning. Now there's a difference between what the CLU tool defines as a low density area and what the American Planning Association. And we would certainly defer if the American Planning Association standard plus given the conditions there that have developed over the last 70 years, you know, we would certainly respect that. Our concern is 20 units on such a small area in that location. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Edwards, before you leave, I have- Isn't that Edwards? Sir, I have one question, please, sir. Yes, ma'am. When you talked about the density and further new development, are there other homes in the same area? Yes, ma'am. And I would just, and this might be a hard sell, but I'll do my best. What we don't want is to possibly repeat practices or developments that have been done in the past. And I don't mean to impugn the developer at all, but just make the situation worse. We want to not only protect our airports, but we want to make sure also that we are not exposing people on the ground to undue threats just because of their proximity. And what is the proximity between the proposed homes and the, I guess, the end of the runway? I'm sorry, ma'am. What is the proximity to the new development to the existing runways? Could you talk about that a little bit? Yes, ma'am. We looked at the extended center line and it's closing so that off the top of my head, I can't tell you how far, but I do know it is within what is called the inner approach zone. So it's, as aircraft are making their final approach into the airport, it's kind of right below that. Okay, thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. So quick, just to clarify that, the concern is not the overall proximity, it's the path to the runway. Is that- Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I have a question more. Is the clue tool something that we're required to consider when it falls within an airport safety overlay district or is that- Yeah, so we are required to submit that to get feedback from SCAC. So we did do that. We did not have the results of that at the time the staff made the recommendation for the rezoning, but again, the staff recommendation was based more on the surrounding land uses and the fact that this is, would really for us be considered a down zone because the current zoning is EC, which is more of a, well, it's employment campus, but it actually falls under an industrial classification in our code. And so the developers requesting the RM2, which is residential. Given what you've heard now, would your recommendation remain or change? I have to say it would stay the same. We did receive the SCAC results last week and we consider staff considers multiple factors when we make a recommendation and a lot of that's policy that plans that we have internally as well, so. Right. I do want to just ask too. So I was interpreting this as a down zone as well. It's technically zoning down. Well, yeah, I mean, if you want to use that term. You could have more people working or actively on the existing zoning. So correct. There are commercial or industrial type uses that would be allowed there currently. It's just more of, I think the residential seems to be the concern with the residential density with SCAC, but I would let him speak to that. But any project independent of the zoning would have to go through that process as part of permitting. The airport review, the SCAC review, the clue tool, yes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Edwards, you may have mentioned this just for my clarification, with the parcel that's right next to it that's already zoned for RM2, is it that that's already dense? Is that what I understood? Like the part- I apologize. My hearing is not that good. Fine, I'll speak a little louder. So for my clarification, you may have already spoken about it, given that the parcel that's right next to it to the left of it is already zoned for RM2. Did you say that the developer who developed that, the units on there are already based on your clue tool, consider what would be dense? Yes. And again, the clue tool finding looks at a variety of things. And again, the finding was, I think, conditionally compatible. And we listed out a number of items that we recommended be implemented if the development project goes forward. On the last page, there are about five or six different areas that are looked at. And the area that was determined to be incompatible was land use. And as I said earlier, we recognize the fact that we're not starting a new, it's not 1930 and this is all undeveloped property. We recognize the fact that there is a lot of development there, that there's a lot of residential development there. We understand that and we can't undo that. But what we wanna make sure is that moving forward, we don't, and again, I don't mean to impugn at all the motives or the anything with regards to the developer. But we just, we want to do all we can to minimize and mitigate high density residential development in proximity to the airport and especially the extended centerline of the runway. Because that's where most of the aircraft, both taking off and landing are going to traverse. So we would ask that the planning commission weigh very heavily anything that would permit a high density of residential development in that area. And if granting this rezoning will do that, then we would recommend that you all think very hard about that. Thank you. And I hope I answered your question, sir. Thank you. So if I could just add one thing. So we did get the results of the clue tool and there were some conditions that were the SCAC put on that it's a conditional approval, I think. So we were working with the applicant and developer and SCAC to try to get those conditions addressed. I think the developer is working directly with SCAC to do that and they could speak to that. But one of the things that we would also ask them to do is they're going to have to do a plat to combine the two lots. And so at that time when they do that plat, we would actually have the easements that SCAC is requesting noted on the plat. And that would be recorded, so. And I would also again like to just, the developer's council has been completely forthcoming, has been in touch with us. We've had some good productive conversations. I hope that we can avoid as much as possible any sort of an adversarial, but we do have a job to do and we did want to make sure that the commission was aware of what the Aeronautics Commission position is. Thank you. Yes, sir. I have one question just for staff. The evaluation of this project would take place in the permitting relative to this. I think from a zoning standpoint, we're looking at compatibility in the long term use of the land independently of this, right? Yes, so the, yeah, this is just a rezoning request. And then I think like we mentioned earlier, the permitting and everything would take place after this. Now with the number of units, it would not require a planning commission review for a site plan review, but it would go through a staff administrative review. Do any planning commissioners have any other questions for the applicant or are there any other people in the audience who would like to speak? Excuse me, good afternoon, my name is Toby Ward. I represent the applicant. It's a pleasure to be here today. I want to first of all thank you for your time. I think this is a great thing to do. I don't have to tell you that this is a rezoning request as staff and even Mr. Eversman acknowledged. This isn't a permitting process. Commonly what you would say that we want to do is to downzone because right now that an industrial use could be established there that would have 300 employees. It could be 75 feet tall. The RM2 zoning is called low density. So this is not a high density project, but y'all don't really need to get into the weeds on this. If you pass it through as RM2 and council ultimately approves it, then in permitting, all these issues will be ironed out. The applicant in the application and here today acknowledges it's in the airport overlaid district. That gives Mr. Eversman and Hamilton Owens all the protection they need because we have to do what airport overlaid district tells us to do. We don't disagree with that. I thank you for your time today and I'd be glad to answer any questions, but I think you get the picture. Thank you. Thank you. Do any commissioners have any points of discussion or questions? With that, I will consider a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve ZMA-2023-0016. Second. I will take about all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? As have it. Thank you, motion's approved. Do we have any other business? No, sir. With that, we will entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion. We adjourn today's meeting. I get a second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you.