 May 3rd, Planning Commission of the City of Columbia. Welcome to Planning Commission members, staff, and guests. We ask for your patience during this virtual meeting. We do have multiple staff members behind the scenes working with us today. We have Lucinda Statler, Planning Administrator, Rachel Bailey, the Zoning Administrator, Jonathan Chambers, the Land Development Administrator, and Andrew Livinggood, the Annexation Coordinator. During the meeting, you will see live images or still images of Planning Commission members and the administrators. However, images of the applicant and the public will not be visible. The public can't participate in a number of ways. You can just watch the meeting or you can participate via email. You can call in on the phone or you can log into the web session. And when participating, please provide your name for documentation purposes. To watch the meeting, the public may stream the meetings through the city TV access at www.youtube.com slash user slash Columbia SC government. The public may also submit letters and statements via email to COC board meeting at columbiasc.gov leading up to and or during the meeting as this account will be monitored during the meetings. Emails and letters that are sent during the meeting will be read into the record. Emails and letters received prior to the meeting have been forwarded to the commission. The public may participate via phone. You may call 855-925-2801. And when prompted, please enter the meeting code 7921. And I will go ahead and call the roll. Mr. Cohn. Here. Ms. Davis. Here. Mr. Hart. Ms. Hartz. Here. Ms. James. Here. Dr. Mandel. Here. Ms. Thomas. Here. Mr. Tupper. Here. And Mr. Frost. Here. Everyone's here, we've got a phone. I'll give a brief meeting overview, brief review of the meeting format. Applicants with requests before the planning commission are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include but is not limited to an overview of the project, case history, and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicants such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the planning commission or staff regarding requests. Members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns and intervals of two minutes. The administrator has a timer and will make presenters aware of when their time has expired. The planning commission reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case by case basis. The planning commission uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by single motion and vote. Examples of such items include approval of site plans, annexations, and street names. If a member of the planning commission or the general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, that item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the meeting. The planning commission then approves the remaining consent agenda items. And I will go ahead and read the consent agenda. The first item is to approve the April 5th, 2021 minutes and then we'll move into future land use map amendments and zoning map amendments for pending annexations. Item number two is 26.35 acres on the south side of technology circle. Request recommendation to assign land use classification of employment campus and assigned zoning of office and institutional district for pending annexation. The property is currently classified as economic development center corridor and zoned GC by Richland County. Item three, 314 Hayward Street, request for recommendations to assign land use classification of urban core mixed residential type three and assigned zoning of two family residential on the Granby architectural conservation district design preservation overlay for a pending annexation. The property is currently classified as mixed residential high density and zoned RMHD by Richland County. Item four, 10.6 acres and 8.12 acres on the west side of Barter River Road. Request recommendation to assign land use classification of urban edge mixed residential and community activity corridor and assign zoning of general residential a portion within a flood protective overlay and neighborhood commercial for pending annexation. The property is currently classified as mixed residential high density and zoned GC and OI by Richland County. Under the zoning text amendment, we have item number five. This is the men's section 17-681B7 districts identified architectural conservation district and Granby architectural conservation district guidelines. Request to add TMS number 08816-10-11 also known as 314 Hayward Street to section 17.681B7, also known as the Granby architectural conservation district and update district boundary map to reflect proposed changes by adding said address 314 Hayward Street to the Granby architectural conservation district at the time of the property's annexation. Under interim future land use map amendment and interim zoning map amendment for pending annexation item six is an 8.8 acre portion on the south side of old Leesburg Road. Request recommendation to assign interim land use classification of urban edge residential small lot and assign interim zoning of single family residential district for pending annexation. The property is currently classified as neighborhood medium density and zoned RSHD by Richland County. Under site plan review item seven, 2100 Waverly Street request site plan approval for the construction of an approximately 30,000 square foot classroom expansion of the Carver line elementary school. The property is owned RG1, General House eventual. Item eight, 13.7 acres Liberty Ridge Drive and Jacobsville Pond Road request site plan approval for the construction of 107 lot attached single family residential subdivision the Liberty Ridge Townhounds. The property is zoned commercial plan unit development. And finally, item nine, 120 Columbia Circle request site plan approval for the construction of an approximately 8,500 square foot retail building. The property is owned large scale plan unit development. And that concludes the items on the consent agenda. Okay, thank you, Lucinda. Is there anyone from the planning commission that would like any item removed from the consent agenda? Hearing none, is there anyone from the public that would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda? When participating, please provide your name for the minutes. Please communicate by sending an email to COC board meeting at columbiasc.gov. Please communicate via phone by pressing star two to leave a voicemail or star three to speak in person. We will now pause to allow communication from the public. That phone number is 855-925-2801 and the meeting code is 7921. Mr. Chair, I do have one caller in the queue. Okay. Hold on. Hey, this is Harold Pickerel. I was on the consent agenda, I don't need to speak. Okay, thank you, Mr. Pickler. Chair, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. Any other callers on the line? I have one caller in the menu. I'll see if they end up raising their hand. Sometimes it takes a minute. That caller left a message for an item on the regular agenda. So that used to be all that we have for the consent agenda at this time. Okay. Any emails come through either, so. Okay. Having no emails and having no callers from the public wishing to change the consent agenda or pull an item. I'll entertain a motion. Can I get a motion and a second to accept the consent agenda subject to all conditions contained in the case summaries? I moved it. Mr. Chair. Second. Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it, the consent agenda is passed. Chairman Frost, this is Lee. I just wanted to verify that my motion was Dr. Mandel and the second was Ms. James. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. All right. The planning commission will now move forward with those items on the regular agenda. All right. That's gonna take us to the site plan review. Item number 10, which is Esplat 2021-0012, which is 30.35 acres on the north, east side of Lost Creek Drive, west of Pond Oak Lane and east of Hawks Nest Court. And this is a request for a attached single family residence neighborhood on their proposing to construct 127 attached lots, attached single family residences, and the lots will range from 2,200 square feet to 3,500 square feet. This property is currently zoned plan unit development and the current PUD allows for up to 216 attached single family residences. However, the applicant is proposing 127. This request was initially slotted to be before the planning commission last month. However, there was an outpour of neighborhood concern with regards to the request. So the applicant chose to defer the application such that they could meet with the neighborhood association and kind of explain their requests. It is our understanding that they have done that. There are some, there's a synopsis of the neighborhood meeting provided from the developer as well as letters from the adjacent property owners. And I believe the applicant as president can answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Unless there is any questions for staff. Any questions from the planning commission to staff at this time? Would anybody from the planning commission like to hear from the applicant? Yes. Okay. If the applicant is present, we'd love to hear. Yeah, absolutely. So this development is a hundred, as Mr. Jonathan said, this development is 127 attached single family residential. The current PUD allows for 216 units, but at the current time, and obviously at planning commission, we're only going for 127 attached units. Our goal for this layout was to kind of preserve the nature of the pre-existing subdivision by creating large buffers to kind of keep it separated from the other development neighborhoods just like the original developer did and his intentions of the other phases. I believe within it describes the lot sizes and things such as that, it's going to be Richland County, I believe it's Richland County utilities for the sewer and it is city of Columbia for the water. I really, Mr. Jonathan virtually addressed everything. If you guys have any questions or anything such as that, I'm happy to answer anything. Mr. Yannick, I do have a question. What was the latest from the neighborhood association and the outreach from the neighbors? Are y'all in agreement essentially for this development? So what we've done is upon us receiving some Jonathan and other members of staff letting us know that there was some opposition. At the first meeting, we decided that it'd be a lot better option rather than pushing something through to go ahead and address the neighborhood's concerns and things such as that. So what we pursued is we pursued holding a board meeting with the members of the board of Chestnut Hill Plantation. We discussed the general questions that the residents had within the subdivision and what the board members had within subdivision. We then created like a big answer sheet to send out to all of the residences that were interested in it that pretty much anybody could have submitted a question and then we addressed those questions within that document. All questions really didn't have any true wrongful opposition when it came to the development itself. It was more just questions about the development, how the development was gonna happen, standard development practice, clearing, grading, erosion control, traffic on the roads, utilities, things like that. Not really much opposition when it came to the actual physical development itself. Obviously, residences around it are gonna have opposition. It'd like it to stay the way it is, but there was very little opposition when it came to questions received to us. And once we held that form first and then after that form was completed, anybody that couldn't make comments at that form, we then held an email form where you could send in emails to the developer, which is me, we send into emails to the developer and then I would answer those emails and we just, very much anybody that had a question would send an email and then we address those concerns in that email with the Chestnut Hill Plantation Board attached to all emails. Got it. So, Jonathan, maybe a question for staff, but currently the way this put is it allows for 216 units, correct, or 216 lots, but the developer is gonna build 127 lots. That is correct. Okay. That's all the questions I have. Any other questions from Planning Commission? Hearing none. So we'll move to public comment. We encourage those who would like to comment via email or the web to begin sending in letters and emails. Emails should go to COC. Board meeting at columbiasc.gov or on the web at HTTPS colon slash slash publicinput.com slash COCPC dash may 2021. For those wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live, please call 855-925-2801. And when prompted, please enter the meeting code 7921. Then press star two, leave a voicemail or press star three to speak live. Please be sure your computer audio is off to avoid any feedback. We will now hear any comments that have been received in writing or any of those via voicemail. I've not seen any emails come through since the meeting started, but we'll keep an eye on that. Okay. Andrew, do you have any callers on the line regarding this case? I do. I will patch through the first caller right now. Good evening. Can you hear? Hello, my name is David Bergeron. I represent the Chestnut Hill Plantation Homeowners Association. Yes, sir. Okay. Dawson has reached out to us and had a meeting with us. That was very nice. The Q and A session on the email, we still have not received any copies of those answers. Chestnut Hill believes the project should be approved, but with certain conditions. Condition one, we would like the emergency access road to be paved. Tier intends to build the required emergency access road using gravel. We can tell you from experience, this won't work. The city recently spent several million dollars to rebuild Lost Creek Drive. The gravel from this access road or one downhill onto Lost Creek, getting ground into the new pavement and damaging vehicles. The road will become a rutted muddy ice ore, not suitable for heavy emergency vehicles. Also by our covenants, all new construction must be approved as being in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood. Gravel drives are not allowed in our neighborhood. Concrete would be in harmony, as well as virtually maintenance free. Properly built outfault road would also be acceptable. Condition two is about the land clearing and the runoff, the erosion. We're concerned with erosion from the site uphill into the existing properties. I think that is the major concern of the current residents. Tier plans to clear the entire site up to the top of the hill, but then only build the bottom half in phase one. The top half would wait until phase one is sold out. This could be months, it could be years. After your assurance, this will install silt fencing, but I'm sure many of us have seen the sensing get overrun and fail after only a short time. We're not confident in this erosion control method. The HOA would like that no land cleared until construction is about to begin. I have sent an email, I sent it before the meeting and I sent it again as soon as this agenda item was called up. I'm willing to send it a third time if you think that'll help. Yes, sir, please do. Can you tell me again the email address? Obviously you're not getting it. I must have typed something in wrong. Lucinda, can you back up to that email address? Okay, I'm sorry. When was the email sent? Because it may have been included in the packet today. There was one before the meeting started. And then I sent it a second time just as soon as this agenda item 10 was called up. So while she's checking, I'll read the email address to you again. It should be COCboardMeetingAtColumbiaSC.gov. Yep, that is what I'm sending to. Is it too big? I've got a couple of attachments on it. Usually about 10 megabytes is about, I mean, sometimes we can get things a little bit bigger than that, but that's the general. All right, I'm only sending, I'm only sending two megabytes. Well, that shouldn't be a problem. I just haven't seen it. Mr. Bergeron, does your email basically just explain what you just mentioned as far as conditions or is there something inside the email? Basically, yes. That's basically what I just talked about. There's some more detail and there's a picture of a place we used to have that was gravel and we tried for years to get the city to pay that the gravel all ran off. It became a rutted muddy mess. Okay. All right, thank you. Any questions from Planning Commission to Mr. Bergeron? Here are none. Okay, thank you, Mr. Bergeron. Thank you. All right, Andrew, are there any other callers on the line? Yes, I do have one more caller in the queue. They also left a voicemail, but so you may want to ask them if they're gonna restate what's in the voicemail. But here you go. Good evening, can you hear us? Hello? Hi, good afternoon. My name is Ross Crow. I live on Lost Creek Drive. And if you lived here where I do, you would be disgusted by the people speeding by at 50, 60 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone. I walk my dog every day. I run off the road at times. There's children that live on this road and these houses. And it's very scary. Now you wanna put another 240 cars on the road, but haven't thought about anything about how you're gonna handle all this traffic and these extra people who don't give a crap about anything but getting where they wanna go. They throw out trash, speed by my house, all disregard for the law. We tried to get speed bumps put in. We had the neighborhood sign enough petitions, but they said they wouldn't do it. There's no way to control this traffic. And now we have another 250 cars on the road going by our house. No, thank you. This is awful. So I'm very much against this development. And I think all my neighbors are as well. And I speak for them. So tell me how you're gonna solve this problem. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from planning commission to Mr. Crow? All right, thank you, Mr. Crow. All right, do we have any other callers on the line? Andrew? Yes, sir, I'm gonna patch this latest caller in. Thank you. Again, just give it a few seconds to connect. Hello, all. Hello. Hi, my name is Desiree Manuel and I'm calling to represent my mom, Patricia Manuel, who is a resident on Ashwood Lake Boulevard. I see that you have on your agenda for planning a land use. The problem right now is that my mom is 84 years old and she does not have water. When the water company came out, they were saying that the pressure in those areas is going down. It's very low because there's so much building and your infrastructures are really old. So what I'd like to know is how can I get water from my mom? She's 84 years old. I live in California. So I'm actually calling in from Los Angeles right now. But my mom is there at 84 years old with no water. She cannot take a shower. She has not taken a shower for a long time. So who can I speak to? Who can help me with this? I've gone to the water department. They've gone out a few times, but no one's come back and the problem is not solved. Is that a question staff can answer? Give her somebody to call? I guess the best way to deal with that, if Andrew, if you could maybe get her contact information and then we can get someone, the best person to get in contact with her, probably the easiest way to do it. Andrew, who are you? Because I need your name and title please, sir. Yes, ma'am. My name is Andrew, living good. Can you spell your last name, please? Yes, that is L-I-V as in Victor, E-N-G-O-O-D. And I'll give you my phone number. And I think I have your contact information here. But my phone number is 803-545-3217. You may have your e-mail address, too. Certainly. It is Andrew.LivingGood, L-I-V-E-N-G-O-O-D at Columbia SC. Again, ColumbiaSC.gov. Columbia.SC.gov? No, ColumbiaSC.gov. So no dot between Columbia and us. Oh, thank you so much. And what's your position? Well, I'm the annexation coordinator, but I can help you. What coordinator are you, sir? I work with annexations. So my title is annexation coordinator. Annexation doesn't. Oh, really? Yeah, because this is a gesture of trouble. I mean, I'm in California, and it's very difficult for me. And I've been calling people and emailing, just that there's a number of people in her area. It's not just her. It's several of the homeowners in that complex that are on Ashwood Lake Drive. And many of them are old and not online and not on computer, and they barely use cell phones. I mean, they're really behind in an antiquated way. But they have something. Sure. So I'll tell you what. I think your phone number begins with Erica at 619. Yes, that's more. It ends with 48. I'll call you after this meeting and we'll touch base. OK, so could you put on the agenda to look at? Because since you're doing land use and development, and I'm an attorney, by the way, that I see a problem in the area and many of the areas that are going to be developed. They need to look at the water use and the water pressure for the residents, because many of them are seniors, and they don't know how to speak out. They don't know where to go, who to talk to. None of those things. They don't drive. They don't use the internet. So their voices aren't being heard. OK, thank you so much. I'll look forward to your call. Bye. Thank you. All right. Andrew, thank you for that. Is there any other callers on the line regarding case number 10? Just so Mr. Bergeron knows, we did find his email. It had gone to our quarantine folder. So we did pull that out and it will become part of the case record. Thank you, Rachel. OK, and he has raised his hand to speak again, Mr. Bergeron. So it's at your discretion. I can connect him. OK, we'll hear him out again. Yes, sir. Mr. Bergeron. Hi, I beg your pardon. I was prompted by what the last lady said, but it turns out thinking of Richland County, we're concerned about the sewer. That's not your problem. OK, thank you. All right. Does that cover the callers, Andrew? Or is there any other callers on the line? That does cover the callers. OK, are there any follow up questions from planning commission to staff or to the applicant? I have one question for, I guess, just to one of the callers comments and the plans they were made to the effect of clearing the entire track. And it looks like on the drawing, there's a limit to disturbance. Maybe about 40% of it. Is that, is there some staff that can confirm? I guess I'm trying to get an understanding of that. Maybe the applicant can speak that. Are they clearing the entire track or just the section inside the disturbance? The preliminary limits of disturbance are included within the document, and that is the only areas to be cleared. So the buffers between that and the neighboring subdivisions? Correct, where you see 16.45 acres of tree same area, those areas will not be cleared and will be left undisturbed. OK. They are using those areas for their density factor for landscaping as well. So they're getting credit for preserving some of that area. Got to. Thank you. OK. Chairman Frost, if I may, Rachel said be the email that had gone into spam earlier. So I don't know if you guys want to, we don't, I guess, have to read it since he was able to talk, but there was an image. Can you guys see this? Yes. This is the email that was trying to come through a little bit ago. So just since we got it, I figured I might want to just take a look at that. I think I don't know. I guess that's it. Understood. Thank you. OK. Speaking of emails, I'm assuming we didn't have any other emails. Lucinda, let me take a look here. I don't see any additional emails. Any final questions from Planning Commission? Mr. Chair, I have a quick final question for the developer. As noted with the Home Owners Association, it was stated that they were concerned about gravel versus paved roads. Is there any plans to ensure that all the roads within that neighborhood will be paved? Yes, sir. I mean, yes, ma'am, all roads will be paved. OK, thank you very much. I believe that question was and if I can just be clear, I believe that question was what wasn't with regards to the roads and the roads leading to the residences. But I believe it was for the emergency access road. And so Dawson, are you saying that the emergency access road will be paved? The area that we're willing to, the area that enters the right-of-way, that area we will be fine paved in that, that is correct. OK, so the 20-foot gated emergency access will be paved? Into the right-of-way. Into the right-of-way, so that the gravel cannot be tracked under the main road. The statements before said where gravel can be tracked on the road will not be applicable because of that 20-foot paved right-of-way. OK, so that I'm clear, the 20-foot access, you're proposing that the 20-foot access road will be paved and or concrete in the right-of-way, and the remaining portion will be gravel? Correct, that is correct. Jonathan, can you show us where this emergency access road is? Yes. And Mr. Jonathan, just to confirm, I'm confirming that that is not a requirement for us to do that, correct? It can be completely gravel, but we're choosing to make it paved, is that correct? I believe that the emergency access road can be gravel as long as it meets the fire department's requirements with regards to it being able to withstand a fire truck. So emergency access roads can be gravel. Correct, I was just confirming that that was not a requirement and that we are doing that above what is required. Thank you. All right, so let me. I think I can see it. Yeah, let me see if I can. I'm going to call the site back out to the current road. That's correct. OK, any other questions from planning commission? I actually have a question. This is Raquel, so will this prevent the current issue that's happening? Are you saying with regards to the emergency access road or Mr. Bertrand's discussion about the gravel washing away? Yes, the gravel washing away. So with the portion that will be paved, will it prevent the current issue that the neighborhood has complained about? Will it prevent that? I mean, a portion of it would be paved and a portion of it's going to be gravel. So depending on the weather and depending on the amount of rain and that kind of thing, it is possible that if the gravel is not maintained, it could have the same issue. Yes. OK, thank you. Hey, Dawson, this is Mason. What's the length of the rideaway for that emergency? What's your rideaway? I believe the length of the rideaway is either 20 or 30 feet. You'd be 30 feet of concrete or asphalt at that? It'd be asphalt. OK, so 30 feet of asphalt per se? Yes, sir. And in this circumstance, it does not apply to SCDOT. Obviously, it's a city of Columbia Road. But in a city of Columbia, I mean, in a SCDOT circumstance, they're normally very stinging on things when it comes to gravel and things like that. And as long as there is within the rideaway pavement, they have no issue with any road tracking. I mean, obviously, any road that is gravel and then within the rideaway having pavement, they're completely fine with that due to the pavement relieving all that gravel before it enters the main road. Fair enough. Appreciate it. Any other questions from Planning Commission? Here and now, and I'll accept the motion. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve the site plan subject to staff conditions at the point at Chestnut Hill Plantation. Got a motion. Can I get a second? A second. OK. Got a motion and a second. All in favor, please signify. Mr. Chairman? Yeah. Before is, and I know you said with staff comments, Ms. James, is that with the condition that the right of way of the emergency access road be paved that's been discussed without it? Yes, with it. OK. Thank you. Thanks for clearing that motion up. So got a motion, got a second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The motion is approved subject to staff comment and right of way paving for the emergency access. Thank you. That's going to take us to the next case, which is a site plan review at 3452 North Main Street, 3,500 North Main Street, 1217 Sunset Drive, and 1205 through 1211 Phillips Street, various TMS, and this is the North Main Brewery, which is going to be a mixed use development. This project was heard by the Planning Commission and on April the 5th, 2021. And the application was deferred by the Planning Commission with regards to a traffic impact study. Since then, the applicant has provided a traffic impact study that has been reviewed and approved by our traffic engineer. Traffic engineer engineering concurs with the findings of the traffic impact study but has recommended approval of the project with the condition that the intersections of North Main and Cook Street, as well as North Main and Miller Street be improved to increase the turn radii such that commercial vehicles and automobiles can maneuver that intersection when stacking. And that would also be done with the coordination between SCDOT, the developer, as well as the city of Columbia. And that is the recommendation of the city's traffic engineer. There are several staff comments, but the majority of the staff comments are standard in nature. There is also a condition with regards to the continuous access. This project also entails the acquisition of Phillip Street, which again is a city of Columbia city council and court issue. However, there's a recommendation that public pedestrian access still be provided along the Phillip Street in Avondale right away. The applicant is present and can explain their case at this time. Can everybody hear me? Yeah, go ahead. Hi, my name is Fort Burnett. I am the applicant and a civil engineer with the land plan group. I won't bore you guys with a full blown rehashing of the project. I'll probably remember this from last meeting, but maybe there was somebody that was absent. So I'll just give a brief overview. This is a 53,000 square foot office building addition, which will face, I guess, North Main and Sunset. And then there's an existing historic 66,000 square foot building that will be converted into a production brewery, tap room, catering, restaurant, among other things. One of the big things that the developer wanted to do was create a campus feel with the project. And so we are in the process of taking over Phillips. And I think we've actually already got the paperwork for Avondale to incorporate those roads into the project. And one of the reasons we're doing Phillips, the couple reasons, we actually own property on the east side of Phillips next to the railroad. And so that joins all the property together. And then Phillips is actually kind of a substandard intersection with Sunset. The road is actually in the railroad right of way. And so if we are granted Phillips to be taken that over, we would actually have to close that because then the road is in the railroad right of way. And so we've had discussions with DOT about moving our access on Sunset over a little bit so that we've got a good distance from the intersection of North Main and Sunset as well as the railroad tracks. I think one of the things that was missing last week was the full blown traffic study. They are not recommended in any offsite traffic improvements as we've got access from former Avondale access to North on Phillips and then also access on Sunset. I think that's kind of it as an overview. I would like to point out one thing, though, about one of the recommendations from staff, the traffic. And they're wanting us to create a large turning radius on intersections of North Main and Miller and North Main on Cook. And I guess the traffic engineer and I have maybe a different opinions on what's acceptable turning radiuses and the types of trucks. And so if the Planning Commission so chooses, it would be great if they would take that caveat out and have that as a work between the staff level and engineer because we don't really know exactly how those intersections are going to play out. We would have to require right away, which is not always easy to do as a private citizen. We don't have the power in the domain. So we may have to come up with a workaround if we even feel that's necessary. So if the board does choose to grant the approval, I would ask that that condition be taken out and deferred to the staff level because we may have to have some sort of workaround. So and the developer, Rick Middleton, is on. And I think he's going to talk a little bit more about some of the efforts that we've had with the neighbors. Greg, are you there? Maybe? Are you looking for me? Oh, Scott, is that you? Sorry. Yeah, Scott and Greg are here. Yeah. OK. Yeah, y'all go ahead. I'll meet myself. I think you were pretty clear on the whole aspect of it. I'll just say that I'll just reiterate the closing of Phillips I think is important just because it's dangerous. In order to turn right on Phillips Street with a big truck right now, you have to stop on the railroad track, which is extremely dangerous. Phillips Street also appears to not be built for these large trucks. So the city will need to come back in if that were to remain open and redo that entire road so that it's not a residential road any longer, but it's big enough for all these big tree trucks and narrow tractor trailer trucks and stuff to go through. So I just think that it's irresponsible at some point to keep that road open considering where it's located. And I'd like to reiterate, too, we actually are going to have a loading dock, and we're going to have 18-wheelers coming into our site. And so we've got to find a solution to get 18-wheelers into our site as well. So we are a willing participant to make sure we've got full access on property. So I just would like to have those details left to the staff level. OK. Thank you. Any questions from Planning Commission to the applicant or to staff at this point? Go ahead, Harris. Go ahead, Harris. The part about the turning radius, where was that as a specific condition? That's located under Ritter, who's the Interim Traffic Engineer. It's in his comments. OK. As well, it's listed in the case summary as well. OK. And I believe Drew is on the call, if there's any questions specifically to those comments. Does staff have any issue reviewing that with the engineers at a staff level to review those turning radii and get the best you can get based on right away and that sort of thing? Well, I think in Drew's here, but I think from a staff standpoint, our traffic engineer, who's the reviewing authority, has looked at it and they feel that the turning radius is hard to navigate, especially if there's vehicles stacked on both of those intersections. And so I'm not sure that deferring that to staff would be the best way to go with that. Traffic engineer has recommended what their approval is with that condition. I was wondering if I could just comment real quick on that. I wouldn't want to burden the planning commission to have to come back again if, for example, we were able to get right away on Miller, but not on Cook. And so that's one of the reasons why we would like to have that, I guess, worked out at the staff level. I mean, there's certain things that are completely out of our control. I mean, if we can't get right away from a private citizen as a private citizen, we don't have that right of imminent domain like DOT or the city. There's really nothing we can do. And so then we're stuck with this condition that we can't meet. And so that was one of the reasons why we wanted to make that at the staff level instead of the condition of the planning commission approval. And I think that's why, I believe it says, the developer in between, coordination between SEDOT and the city of Columbia. But again, Drew is, I believe Drew is on the phone and on the call, and I think he can speak to it. Drew. Yeah, I'm here. I was going to say, yeah, I think we can, and I'll be honest, I just got to study last week. So I think we can work with that as far as if it's kind of, and I'll be honest, I don't know the frequency of what, how many tractor trailers are coming in and out of there. I don't know the details of, I know Sox and Freeman is back there. I think we can maybe work out a plan to maybe if it's just doing Miller, maybe just tell them, I know Cook, they stop at Cook, but they go to that gas station right there. So if maybe if it's figuring out some sort of plan, yes, I think we can work with you on that. OK, that'd be great. So just another question I have. North Main Street is DOT, correct? And does Cook, Miller, both DOT streets? Correct. OK. Yes, I mean, North Main, this is Drew again. I was going to say North Main is DOT, yes. But I was going to say that's with North Main being the main road, it's going to, the intersection is going to be their intersection. It's going to trump whether it's city or state. But yes, to answer your question. Right, OK. So it's more of a we could put the condition on the developer, but then DOT has to have an approval of the the radio and the encroachment of any wide and radius. Yeah, yes, yes, I apologize. I'm in the car, so yes, that's so I mean, it almost to me seems like it's got to be just a discussion between staff and DOT and, you know, work out the best possible arrangement at the time. It's going to be a yes, absolutely. It'll be a joint effort. Yes, sir. So, Drew, are we hearing you correctly that, you know, you are willing to work with the the developer and with the DOT to to progress that further, that we could take that as a condition outside of this approval? Yes, I I talked with Lori Campbell, she's the district one traffic engineer today. Yes, I'm willing to I'm still kind of waiting to get some feedback from her. But yes, I'm willing to work. We're yeah, we're willing to work with that condition. OK, thank you. Are there any other questions from Planning Commission to the applicant or to staff? Hearing none, we'll open up to public comment. So we'll open the public comment. We encourage those who would like to comment via email or the web to begin sending in letters and emails. That email is COC board meeting at Columbia SC dot gov or on the web at HTTPS colon slash slash public input dot com slash C O C PC dash may twenty twenty one. For those wanting to leave a voicemail or to speak live, please call eight five five nine two five two eight zero one. When prompted, please enter the meeting code seven nine two one. Then press star two to leave a voicemail or press star three to speak live. Please be sure your computer audio is off to avoid feedback. We will pause to hear any comments that have been received in writing. And are those any via voicemail or on the line? I do have an email. This is from Robin Spaniel, who lives on 22 10 Wall Street. And she says, why does it say proposal request site plan approval for the construction of medical office building? Is there going to be a medical office under use? It does not list medical. Is this listed under office? I can answer that. Yes, there will be a medical office on the first floor, half the first floor. Or we think there will be tentatively don't have tenets lined up. But that's the thought process. Is that that's an acceptable use for the zoning, correct? Correct. OK. I believe it's actually it's going to be that's one of the uses that's going to be in there. It's going to be mixed use. Right. OK. Any other emails Lucinda at this stage? There are no other emails at this point. I do have a caller and I could pass them through. OK, thank you. Good evening. This is the planning commission. Yes, this is Chuck Sally. Yes. Can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you, Chuck. OK, good. Jamie, how are you? I'm good. Thank you. Hey, so I've got some real concerns about closing Phillips Street. I own the building at 1220 Cook Avenue. It's an 18,000 square foot warehouse is leased to real floors, Inc. You know, I have run this by the general manager might jump for it real floors and he has said that if they close Phillips Street, he has suppliers that said he will not deliver to him anymore because they can't make the turning radius not only from North Main to Cook, but from Cook to Phillips Street. That needs to be improved as well. So, you know, that's a, you know, this is a serious risk to that, you know, stocks and free minutes the same way corporate concepts are also equally concerned about that. And, you know, without the improvements necessary for for, you know, truck traffic to enter Phillips Street from those others, we you're going to really severely damage the the value of those properties by closing a public what is now a public road. Thank you, Chuck. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Chuck Sally? OK, thank you. Thank you, Chuck. I think we have any other callers. I do not have any other callers at this time. Any other emails, Lucinda? I have not seen any additional emails at this time. Having no other callers or any other any other questions from Planning Commission to staff or to the applicant. And, and Jane, I'm sorry, I do have a caller that has just OK, OK, pass him through. Good evening. This is the Planning Commission. Hello, this is Chris Freeman of Stocks and Freeman Tree Company. How are you doing today? Doing good, Mr. Freeman. Good, good, good. Listen, first of all, let me let me emphasize that Stocks and Freeman has no opposition to the Middleton's proposed development. Matter of fact, being a long term business in the community, we feel like it's a great boost for our community. And actually, it's I think a real gut to move on their part to make this investment. But, you know, and being at our current location now for some 60 years, we don't want, like Mr. Sally said, we don't want to be the the end user here that gets punished by limiting our risk or elevating our exposure to ingress and egress from the intersection of Cook Street to off North Main or from North Main to Miller. I know these residential roads, they do need improving. But, you know, at 60 year history, we have been able to make this work. But closing the end of Philip Street right now without a guarantee that we have a greater turn in radio at those intersections and as well, Cook Street and Philip Street. We don't feel like it is right for y'all to approve any proposed plan until we have a guarantee that those things are in place. We don't want to be the the barrier or bearer of what could be a higher risk aggravation. And because as is with the new development of Main Street to read the three development of Main Street North Main, the intersections there have become even narrower than they ever have been. So it's almost difficult for passenger vehicles to make those turns much less when you put a truck like ours. Or if real floors is having an 18-wheeler delivery, occasionally we get 18-wheeler delivery. So we just see that there's there's a higher risk that it involved here if we do not have those guarantees with much wider intersections there. So until then, you know, we're standing firm that we don't believe any proposal should be approved until we have that guarantee. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Freeman. Any questions from. Thank you. Mission to Mr. Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Freeman. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other callers, Andrew? No, there are no more callers. OK, all right. Any other final questions or or questions for the staff or for the applicant from the Planning Commission? I guess I'm confused about where to go from here. It sounds like there are some, you know, outstanding issues with the traffic piece that I mean, can they be resolved? I mean, is it is it our purview? There's been a lot of talks, so I'm just trying to figure out what is that something DOT is going to figure out eventually. So if we pass this as is, at some point, it will be, you know, something that will go to another. You know, decision making body to make a final decision on that. What what's the what's the takeaway from all that discussion? Hey, this is Greg Middleton here. I'll just interject if nobody else knows the Richmond County court system court of pleas is the one that makes the final judgment on a road closure and they do that based on city staff recommendations, SED recommendations and other defendants in the case. Lucinda. Yeah, I mean, this this will the road closer and we'll certainly have to get us actually going to City Council for a public hearing, I believe, tomorrow and then we'll end up in the court system. So my understanding, Jonathan, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the site and approval, I mean, the site plan is dependent upon the road closure happening. But then the site, the Planning Commission has to approve any, you know, offsite improvements. That they feel it is necessary to make the site plan work based on staff recommendations. That's correct, Lucinda. I'd like to reiterate that we are going to have to have 18 wheeler truck access to our facility as well. So it's in our best interest to have either Miller and Phillips or Coke and Phillips or Miller and North Maine or Coke and North Maine to be accessible with an 18 wheeler truck as well. So just to give you guys some reassurance that that's we can't get product unless we have 18 wheeler truck access. So I guess my question is, is there a way to approve this plan with the idea that we understand that someone else will be dealing with this traffic issue, which needs to be resolved before anything can actually happen in terms of building the site out? Is that, is that something we can do, Lucinda? I mean, I think so. I mean, it sounds like if, you know, if the conditions that the planning commission puts in their motion are not satisfied per the city staff that made the recommendation, then it would have to come back to planning commission. I mean, so I mean, Drew sounded a little bit flexible in terms of, you know, exactly what the improvements would have to be made, but he would need to be comfortable with, with the solution that is proposed in order for it to be resolved with the staff level. So is there, I mean, I keep coming back to, is there a way to approve it and to say that it would be subject to approval by the city traffic engineer? I mean, I think that's acceptable. It's comfortable with that. Um, I mean, Jonathan, is that, is that sound like that meets the slight approval that you are understanding? I guess the question is, is, you know, I know that there was some discussion about both intersections, and then there's discussion about one intersection. Um, I believe that the developer is asking for flexibility on one of the intersections, and I believe the callers were stating that they needed two of the intersections. So I think, you know, you'd have to kind of figure out exactly, you know, are you saying both intersections or one intersection? Um, Drew's initial comments, um, read the intersection improvements to include an increase in turn radio must be made to the intersection of North Main Street and Cook Street, as well as North Main and Miller Street to accommodate commercial vehicles and automobiles at the expense of the developer with coordination between SCDOT and the city of Columbia. So if, if the plans were to be approved with that, then that would be the condition. And if, let's just say they didn't want to, you know, they couldn't make the improvements to both of the intersections, then it would have to come back to the planning commission, um, to be relieved of that, to be relieved of a condition. So Jonathan, would it be possible? I know I keep coming back to this, but I'm just trying to figure it out. Is there a way to, um, approve this subject to, you know, with all staff comments, but stating that the traffic plan just period for both intersections or whatever happens from here, that the traffic plan needs to be, you know, agreed upon with the city traffic engineer? Is there a way to do that? Sorry, Jonathan. If that's the, if that's the, you know, if that's the condition of the planning commission, then, you know, we'd have to see if that could work. Okay. I mean, I just don't, I'm just trying to coordination with, we'd have to also coordinate with DOT and be, you know, the city of Columbia, the developer and SCDOT. Okay. I'm just trying to figure out a way that we can sort of approve this understanding that the traffic piece is still out there. And I mean, I don't know how much good it would come back if we approved it subject to all staff comments, including the traffic piece, and then it couldn't be done. And then it has to come back to planning commission with a new plan. I just don't see the utility in that when there are other people who need to be involved in the process, but it also sounds like they're major issues. So I don't want to just relieve all responsibility for that. As I'm just trying to figure out a way to do those things. So I don't know if. Understood. Because I feel like this is the second time they've been back and and everything else is good to go. But, you know, this is the piece that's hanging out there. And there, you know, as Hoyt said, they're motivated to get it figured out. I know everybody wants to get it figured out. I don't know what the solution is, but I'm also not a traffic engineer. So I don't, you know, I don't know what the utility would be in it coming back to us if there's a way that, you know, other people need to get it figured out. But I mean, it sounds like it can't really be built until that gets figured out for a lot of different reasons. Is that correct? Yes. Including DOT. OK, I'm just trying to clarify because I it seems like if there's a way we could approve it, but understand that the traffic issue needs to go through some other you know, some other approval processes and we wouldn't have to see it again based on the traffic piece. Because I mean, anyway, I'm just trying to figure that out. So anybody else on the Planning Commission have a thought? I would I would just say that I, you know, I concur with your thoughts and I think that from what I thought I heard from Drew is that he's willing to work at a staff level with Hoyt to come up with something that works alongside with the DOT. I mean, at the end of the day, those three entities have to come up with something that works. I don't know that we can. I don't know how you approve something with any sort of condition on it other than there being a condition that. Those three work together to. You know, create the best traffic scenario possible. So I mean, I would say we moved to approve this with the condition that. The developer, the engineer, the city and the DOT work together to. See what can happen with the intersections. Yeah, that's all we're asking for. And I think we need to make sure that we also ensure that all the other staff comments get included because there are others other staff comments as well. So I mean, I'm ready to make a motion unless someone else has some additional comment or thoughts. Any other questions from Planning Commission? All right, here and now and I'll accept the motion. I move that we approve this project. Lucinda, do I need to state what project it is? Yes, please. OK. I'm going to need to go to a different screen to do that. Hang on. I can go ahead and make the motion if you want. OK, I mean, just to be clear, you know, I'm supporting what Jamie said, which is that it needs to include all of staff comments other than the traffic piece, which then needs to be settled between the Department of Transportation, the developer and the city of Columbia traffic. So if that's what you're going to make the motion for and you can include there again. OK, got it. All right, I'll go ahead. It's here and I started it. So all right, I move that we approve the development at 3452 North Main Street, 3500 North Main Street, 1217 Sunset Drive and 1205 through 1211 Phillips Street, including all staff comments except for the comments on traffic from the city and on that piece that we know that the Department of Transportation, the developer of this project and the city traffic department need to work together to come up with a solution that is agreeable to all entities. Second. Got a motion, got a second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The motion is approved. All right, so the next item on the agenda is the some requested revisions to the new city of Columbia zoning map that is set to take effect on August 30th in conjunction with the Unified Development Ordinance. These changes are mainly due to errors where we had accidentally rezoned properties that had already been rezoned previously, so we needed to match some was council input and some were errors that we caught taking second, third, fourth looks at the map. So this is kind of a cleanup amendment, though. And these come to you all today. Council just gave first reading to the overall maps, and I think Lucinda's flipping through them. These will go through council also that they are effective before the August 30th date, so that when the maps do take effect, these changes will have been approved and adopted. Was that everything, Rachel? Yes. Any questions from Planning Commission regarding these revisions in this case? Hearing none. Do we have to have any sort of public comment on this one? Yes. OK. So no question from the Planning Commission to staff that I'm aware of, so we'll open it to public comment. Again, we encourage those who would like to comment via email or the web to begin sending in letters and emails. Emails should be sent to COC board meeting at columbiaSC.gov or on the web at HTTPS colon slash slash public input dot com slash COC PC dash May 2021. For those of you wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live, please call 855-925-2801. And when prompted, please enter the meeting code 7921. Then press star two to leave a voicemail or press star three to speak live. Be sure your computer audio is off to avoid feedback. We will pause briefly to allow for any calls or any emails to come in and hear those comments. So, Lucinda, have we had any emails? I do not see any emails at this time. OK, Andrew, do you have any callers on the line regarding case number 12? Likewise, I do not have any callers in the queue. OK. Maybe we'll just take another brief pause just to make sure of technology in too slow. No emails, Lucinda. No emails, no callers, Andrew. Still no callers. OK. All right. Having no callers on the line or no emails from the public. Are there any other questions or any questions from Planning Commission? Very none. I'll accept a motion. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve the requested revisions to the city council for the city of Columbia zoning map to take effect on August 30th two thousand twenty twenty one. Got a motion. Can I get a second? Thank you. Got a motion and a second. All in favor. Please signify by saying I. Any opposed? Forward. Thanks, Mark. Any opposed? Say no. The eyes have it. The motion is approved. Going on to other businesses. Are there any other business? And I'm aware of here and none. I'll accept the motion that we adjourned. So moved. Got a motion. Second. Second. Got a second. All in favor. Signify by saying I. Hi. Motion is adjourned. Got a motion. The motion is approved. The meeting is adjourned. Have a good one. Don't take night. Have a good night. Good night.