 I'd like to welcome everyone to the July 10, 2018 meeting of the City of Columbia Board of Zoning Appeals. My name is Chuck Sallie and I serve as Chair of the Board, and this time I'd like to introduce the other members of the Board. To my left is Josh Speed, and to my immediate right, Gene Deakins, and to my far right is Marcellus Primus. This time I'd like to also introduce members of the staff, assist the Board during the meeting. I'm Zoning Administrator Rachel Bailey, and Hannah Slice, Associate Planner, and also helping today Andrea Wolfe, land use board coordinator. The Board is charged with hearing 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 and must come up to the podium to speak. No testimony can be taken from the floor. When you come up to the podium, state your name, and please speak clearly into the microphone because the meeting is being recorded. For those of you who plan to speak, you must be sworn, so if you are here as an applicant or here to speak on any case before us, please stand at this time and raise your right hand. You affirm or attest that testimony will give the days the truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. This time I'd like to turn the meeting over to Ms. Bailey. So the Board uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion and vote. If a member of the Board or the general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, that item is removed and considered during the meeting. The Board then approves the remaining consent agenda items. The first matter on the consent agenda today is to approve the June 12, 2018 minutes. And item number two on the agenda, Case 2018, 0049, for 1531 Laurel Street. It's a special exception to permit a physical fitness facility. Does anyone in the audience or on the Board wish to take item 2018, 0049 SE off the consent agenda? In that case, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the consent agenda subject to the comments of staff and the applicant's written testimony. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ms. Carries. The first item on the regular agenda is item number three, Case 2018, 0048, for 1001 Washington Street. It's a variance to the off-street parking requirement for residential use. If the applicant's here, they're welcome to come forward and address the Board. Good morning. I'm Dan Sharon with Sharon Associates Architects. What we would like to do with this building is historic building. Currently, the lower level is an assembly occupancy. The top two levels are business occupancies. Offices on the second floor are rented out, the office on the third floor are vacant and have been for a while. The new owner of the building would like to convert the third floor into apartments. What we would, you know, what we can fit in that square footage is two, one studio apartment and two, a two bedroom apartment and a one bedroom apartment. The issue we have is the building is on the property lines. There's no parking on the site at all currently and no option to put additional parking on the site. I believe we're required to have three by the zoning requirements. What we're hoping is a variance from the three parking spaces because there is a lot of parking around this facility that's rarely used and our anticipation is that most of the tenants of the building will be parking in these spaces during the day, the metered spaces around the building, I mean at night and during the day they'll be at work and won't be occupying those spaces. So we're hoping to get some relief from the requirements since there's not an option and really the third floor of the building is not very viable as a business occupancy right now. So if you don't mind, Dan, would you just kind of go through the criteria kind of one by one just to have that on the record for us? The criteria, I didn't bring my glasses, wait a minute. Under your response? The applicant response? Okay. Describe the extraordinary and exceptional conditions that pertain to the subject project, this is an existing structure with no existing parking for the business and assembly occupants, ample metered parking on the street which would typically be used by apartment tenants at night when traffic is light. To describe the conditions noted above do not generally apply to other properties or structures, there's just a complete lack of available parking for this particular structure. Is this structure on the historic register or anything like that? Yes, it is. Describe the ways in which the application of the requirement of the zoning of the ordinance effectively prohibit or unreasonably strict the utilization of the subject project property. The use is limited to business and parking can be used for business during the day but before the apartments at night. For item four, the ways in which granting the variance will not be a substantial detriment. Again, the parking at night, except maybe on a Friday night or a Saturday night is very light in that area. And there's usually ample parking for it. I've driven through here multiple times since we applied and there's almost always some parking in the area day or night. So the extra three cars won't significantly impact the adjacent businesses or any other apartments that may be in the area. If the variance requests the minimum necessary, yes, because again, we have zero room for additional parking. And then explain how your proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The city center overlay encourages residential use to bring 24 hour into the activity, activity into the area. And this use will add full time occupants and very few additional vehicles. Quick question. The lot that surrounds the building, is that, do you know who owns that? I believe Richland County Library owns that. That's part of their parking structure. Not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure when I was looking over the GIS that's who owns that. Well, thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience to speak in favor or against this application? See none, I'd like to open it up for board discussion. I mean, I think it's a pretty simple situation. They have zero parking, the historic building, zero lot line. The upstairs is used for no purpose now. I think that Dan is correct in stating that there's ample parking there after business hours where residents would be using that space. And I would be inclined to be in favor of this application. I absolutely agree. I mean, you look in the photo and there are many spaces surrounding the site. And this photo is taken during the daytime. I don't know what day it is, but it doesn't appear to be anyone parked in any of these on-street parking spaces. But certainly the impact of 2.2 spaces down to zero is very minimal in my opinion. So I think it's a no-brainer. I'll say yes, I won't, but I would absolutely agree. I'd like to make a motion that we approve this application for a special exception. Variance, excuse me, variance and subject to all comments and staff and pursuant to the applicant's written testimony. All in favor say aye. All opposed? Carries. The last item on the regular agenda is item number four, case 2018-0050 for 1315 Calhoun Street. It is a variance to the off-street parking requirements for a physical fitness facility. I believe the applicants here, they want to come forward. Good morning. My name is Justin Washburn. I'm the architect for the outfit of 1315 Calhoun Street. The building was previously vacant but was built as an auto parts warehouse in 1963. When the property was developed, they positioned the building 30 feet from the east property line and 23 feet from the front property line. Through a meeting with the city staff, we determined that the property could accommodate three compliant parking spaces due to the limitations of the site. We're unable to provide the remaining 19 required off-street parking spaces. We request a parking variance for the 19 off-street parking spaces. We propose to meet the total 43 spaces with 40 on-street spaces within 400 feet of the building. And I provided a diagram showing that there's ample parking available in the area. We're also planning to install a bike rack to provide an alternate transportation alternative for employees and customers. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. You've stated there's 40 spaces within 400 feet. Where are those spaces? Most of them are on Marion Street and then there's about 12 on Sumter and 12 on Calhoun. I don't see the diagram. So the blue is the bike park. Blue is the site parking spaces that we're providing and then the green would be the available off-site on-street. What's the use in the rest of the building? The building is going to be completely occupied as a physical fitness facility. It's going to be an 18,000 square foot or is that the lot? That's the lot. So it's 9,000 square foot warehouse? That's what the tax map numbers say that it is. But based on my measurements, it's actually closer to 8,500 square feet. Isn't that a big Pilate studio? It is. There's going to be some boxing areas and just general gym equipment, restrooms, lobby. What are the hours? I don't think the owner of the business is here. He would know better what the hours are, but I think they're planning on their peak hours being before work and after work. Do you have your application handy? I have it up on my phone. I bet Hannah can give you a copy real quick. You quickly go through the criteria. Describe the extraordinary and exceptional conditions. The property is 83 feet wide and 208 feet deep with the existing building footprint occupying a 50 by 174 foot area on the northwest side. This leaves 30 feet to the east and 23 feet to the south property lines limited by the available area and a single entry point on the south property line. The parking spaces are limited to the south side and the three parking spaces that we have to know. I have a quick question here. So you're basically going to take this whole building. There's a truck court that goes the entire length of the building. And because it's 33, because it's 30 feet from the building to the property line, you can't put parking there that's compliant. There's currently diagonal spaces, but in order to get out of those diagonal spaces, you kind of have to three point turn or back out into the right of way. Based on the amount of work that they're putting into the building, they triggered land development compliance and that's why they're unable to maintain those diagonal spaces that are on the but you're not expanding the building or anything. They're not doing that. We're not adding any square footage. It's all interior. So you've got parking. It's just not conforming part. Correct. Describe the conditions noted above. Do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. There's little to no similarities in lock coverage and sites. Layouts in the vicinity. But most allow for better utilization or non-compliant parking. Describe the ways in which the application of the requirements of the zoning ordinance effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the utilization of the subject property. There are very few uses permitted in C4 that would allow a building of this size to meet the parking requirements with only three spaces. Describe the existing conditions prohibit more spaces on the site. Describe the ways in which granting the variance will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property or to the public good. Additionally, in what ways will the granting of the variance not harm the character of the district? The variance will generally not affect the neighboring properties because the peak use times will not coincide with neighboring properties. Business hours, there's a church across the street, and then several businesses that are typically operated in 9 to 5, including a school. This variance requests the minimum necessary. Yes, because of the constraints, only three compliance parking spaces can be placed on the site. Explain how your proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The intent of our proposal is to allow continuous operation of an existing building and its site. Who owns the site if you're on the street facing the property to the right with the apparently large parking lot right there? Across the street? To the right of this property. To the right of it, that's the school, the, forget what? Yeah, it's a... Can you all make sure your mic's on and part of the video is clear? Can you hear me okay? Yeah. I guess the reason I asked the question is have you made any attempt to try to secure some off-site parking with any of these surrounding properties? The property business owner has approached multiple of the neighbors and asked, and none of them are willing to formally agree to share parking. They've said informally you can use our parking, but they're not willing to make a formal agreement. Well, in going to the no-name deli at 12 o'clock, on a weekday I've partnered almost every one of these parking places on the street here. They have a similar situation. The only issue that you're going to have is the noon class is going to be kind of crowded over there. But I do think that there will be a lot of people that will utilize the on-site parking as well. That it's not compliant, but it's workable. They will lose the landscaping. That's going to be taken up with landscaping? It's not going to be taken up by landscaping. I think it will just be unavailable parking spaces, because they'll be fenced off. So, if you look at the parking design carefully to see if you can do additional parallel parking and then have it turn around on the end? In order to have it turn around, we would have to tear down close to 50% of the building to get the circulation behind. So, Hannah, what you're saying is they can't use that parking? They cannot. If they hadn't triggered the land development mark, they would have been able to use the existing parking with the existing conditions. But that trigger is what? And we triggered the land development mark because the building's taxable value is like $50,000, so pretty much any improvements are going to trip it. So, all these proposed green spaces on the side streets, are there not any on-street spaces in front of this property? There are no on-street spaces on Calhoun Street in that block. Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience who's here to speak in favor against this application? I don't see anyone. I'll open it up for board discussion. You know, we've certainly, this is one of the more common things that we talk about in debate all the time. Looking at this one, my opinion is, I'm honestly concerned that, I mean, this may be the tipping point. You know, we've approved a lot of them where you're going from, I don't know, 20 to 9 or 10 to 3, and there's been some effort to secure some, or been some ability, not that there wasn't an effort here, to secure some off-site spaces on adjacent properties. But this just seems to be a little excessive to me. I guess I would feel better if there were some on-street parking spaces in front of this property. But the fact that these spaces that we're looking at, you know, maybe counting and using, or not even in front of the site, gives me some concern. I understand your concerns, and I agree. And also, you know, feel like not being able to question the owner about the hours of operation, the size of the classes, and things like that makes it impossible for me to say yay to this one. And I think, you know, if he just showed up, we might have been able to work something out. But I make a motion that we deny this request for parking variance. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. On the regular agenda, I was going to open it up to you all to see if you wanted to elect a new vice chair today, or if you wanted to do that at a time. I would like to do that. I would like to propose as Slade Jean Deakins is the vice chair. I can second that. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Congratulations, Mr. Vice Chair. I'd like to make a motion that this meeting be adjourned. Is there a second on the adjournment? Second. Second? Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.