 to call the City of Columbia Planning Commission meeting for August 10th into session. Welcome Planning Commission members, staff and guests. Multiple staff members are here today to ensure that the meeting runs smoothly and all applicants and members of the public are able to participate in the meeting at the appropriate times. If you're here today and would like to speak about a case, please provide your name clearly into the microphone and please be sure to sign in either at the back of the room or at the podium for documentation purposes. If you're here to speak about a case, you must speak up when the chairperson calls for a public comment. And I'll go ahead and call the roll. Mr. Causey. Mr. Cook. Here. Ms. Davis. Here. Mr. Dinkins. Here. Mr. Harp. Here. And Mr. Frost. Here. We have a quorum. I'll give a brief meeting of the overview or overview of the meeting brief review of the meeting format. Applicants with requests before the Planning Commission are allowed a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include but is not limited to an overview of the project, the 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 the requests. During the public comment period, members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns and intervals of two minutes. After the public comment period, applicants have five minutes to respond. Once the Planning Commission begins deliberations, no additional comments will be permitted by the applicant or the public. 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. Are there any changes to the agenda? We have had one change since publication. Case number six, which is on the regular agenda, a zoning map amendment ZMA-2023-0014 for 2401 Gatston, 701 Chester, and the property next to 701 Chester has been deferred by the applicant. And other than that, the agenda stands. Thank you. The Planning Commission uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a 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, you must speak up after the consent agenda is read. Then that item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the regular meeting. The Planning Commission then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Mr. Chairman, prior to voting on consent agenda, I need to recuse myself from case number three, annex 2023-0016. Okay. Mr. Colise's recusal is noted on agenda item number three. Okay. I'll go ahead and read the consent agenda. Item number one is to approve the July 13, 2023 minutes. Item two is a feature land use map amendment and a zoning map amendment for appending annexation. This is annex-2023-0015 at 110 Jacobs Mill Pond Road. Request recommendation on the assignment of land use classification of urban edge residential large lot and the assignment of zoning of residential single family large lot district for appending annexation. The property is currently classified as neighborhood medium density and zoned RSLD by Richland County. Is anyone here from the public to that would like to speak about the 110 Jacobs Mill Pond Road. So we will pull that one off the consent agenda and put it on the regular meeting agenda. Here are none. Case the next case is case number three annex-2023-00167716 Garner's Ferry Road. Request recommendation on the assignment of land use classification of community activity corridor AC2 and the assignment of zoning of general commercial district for appending annexation. The property is currently classified as neighborhood medium density and zoned GC by Richland County. Is there anyone here from the public that would like to pull this particular case from the consent agenda and place it on regular meeting agenda. No one here to speak about that one. Hearing none we're good to move. Case four is annex-2023-0017 5706 and 5710 Fairfield Road 602 Oakland Avenue 721 and 731 Prescott Road and the property next to 809 and next to 815 Woodside Avenue. Request recommendation on the assignment of land use classifications of community activity corridor AC2 and urban edge residential small lot and the assignment of zoning of general commercial district and mixed-use district MU1 for appending annexation. The property is currently classified as mixed residential high density and a community activity center and a priority investment area and zoned general commercial and residential single family medium density by Richland County. Thank you is there anyone here that would like to speak about the case at Fairfield Road Oakland Prescott and Woodside Avenue. Anyone's here to speak we will pull that one off the consent and move it to regular seeing none. Call for any removal of the items. Is there anyone from planning commission that would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular meeting agenda? Hearing none I will accept a motion for a vote. I'll make a motion. I move to approve the consent agenda including the July 13, 2023 minutes and items number two, three and four with any staff recommendations. All right got a motion to approve the consent agenda as read. Can I get a second? Second. Got a motion and a second all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. The ayes have it. The motion is approved by some other means in and out. Where does that go that emerges the exit? That comes back to Trinity Drive. Okay I think David does have two items that we'd like to discuss based off of the comments from staff as well. Okay sure. My name is David Brandes with Yale Robinson Engineering. Two things we wanted to discuss. We wanted to point out that in the agenda it mentioned 193. Jonathan correctly mentioned it was 210 and then the write-up is 210 so we didn't want to make sure we noted that difference. Two items in the comments we wanted to make sure we're clarified. First one, the fire rating of walls less than five feet. I'm on page one of two. We would like to make sure that it's recognized that the code requires a 10 foot separation between buildings. We have some zero lot lines on the sides but we don't have any buildings closer than 10 feet. So if if amenable to everyone we'd like to add to that fire rating of walls less than five to the proper lines shall have the required fire separation of 10 feet. The reason we would ask that we don't really want to move the property lines from what you're seeing today because we don't want to have to come back and if working with the building official if he does require us to move that property line which we have space to do we wouldn't want to have to come back to planning commission. Any questions on that comment? No I would just defer to staff on how it's the best way to handle that comment or I don't think that that would be you know that's regulated by the building code right and I believe that those lot lines shift due to the building code as long as the unit the units didn't increase then that would be done administratively. Okay so you want to ensure that there's you will ensure there's 10 feet between each building. Correct we wouldn't be able to get a building permit without it. That's correct yeah understood but but there's more than one way we could have a zero lot line and then spacing of 10 feet or we could have a five foot lot on either side of the exterior of the town home so there's more than one way to comply we don't want to get locked in to happening to have five feet of property line adjacent to the town home. Understood. Does that make sense? Mr. Dinkins I still see some perhaps. Can they do a zero lot line? Yes. In fact you know there there are five town homes in one unit each connected you know the middle town home has a zero lot line all the way through so the sides can have a zero lot line as well. I'm sorry just for clarification so if I have five town homes together in the next building over then we would be only five feet apart. It would be required by fire code to be 10 feet. Okay I think all exterior walls have to be from building to building at least 10 feet apart. In our case we're 20 feet apart but the code requires a minimum of 10. Okay thank you. The second question we'd like to talk about is under the street divisions there we have some parallel parking spaces in the lower portion of the project up against Trinity they're the interior interior roads that we'd like instead of removed parallel parking spaces are located in the road right away we'd like to add a sentence to that saying if required by street division during full plan production or excuse me full plan approval it's really difficult for us to take a parallel parking space and put it outside the right away our width of our road is 28 feet and then we have to the 25 foot right of way space and if we put the parallel space outside of that we're then going to have some dead asphalt between it and we're worried that people end up head in parking. We recognize the the issue if street division during construction says nope I still don't want the parallel spaces we'll remove them but we'd like the option to be able to have that when we go to full construction plan approval. Is that in our purview Lucinda and I mean in that encourage wouldn't that be David's department? That's their comment is that the space is not be there so if Mr if the developer is wanting to have those spaces there then I would believe that the their recommendation would be recommended not all of the plan because those parking spaces do not meet the requirements of their regulations. My argument is that you would never have parallel parking spaces anywhere in the city if you allowed if that was a requirement. There'd be no way you could take parallel spaces along a road and then put them outside of the public right away unless you put the public right away at the edge of the travel way and the inside of the parallel parking space. So I think in my mind as an engineer I don't think street division is thought all the way through this comment. However if it's required today and you say nope that's going to require denial then we'll remove that and we'll just remove the parallel parking spaces. Do you pick up or gain these places and what's your what's your loss or gain of parking spaces whether being parallel or not parallel I guess. We don't have room to make them non parallel so we would lose I'm not sure the exact number can you count those real quick somewhere around 10 12 12 yeah so it's not a big deal right you know if we if you say nope you got to have that condition or not have that condition today we'll say we'll press on but we would like the option to if in full plan approval street division changes their mind we'd like at least that option right now if you put this as a condition of approval we don't have that option to discuss it with them do you meet the required parking with all spots located on the property and not including any of the we meet all parking parking is two units of two spaces per unit we have a garage and a driveway that meets that but as you know in all these developments parking becomes a problem so we have quite a few additional parkings for visitors and that's why we added these you know and honestly I'll tell you straight people gonna park there anyway we put a sidewalk there people gonna park there anyway so we'd like to actually stripe it for parking so that it keeps people from parking on the sidewalks just as a comment as the developer that will be doing the project and this is if it's something that is the commission is not going to approve that spine it's but it is we think it's a value add to the project to be able to have additional parking that's something that's important to us for our buyers that we that we consider especially in town development so you're comfortable with a recommendation that all parking must be contained on the private property if that's what it if that's what it is that's you know we'll live that yes staff recommended approval based upon the comments that were provided based upon meeting the ordinance requirements and the plan didn't meet the ordinance requirements for the those parallel parking spaces so staff recommended that those not be there the the other thing is too is that you know if the applicant is wanting to have the extra parking which they do have some extra parking you know they don't have to be parallel spaces they may be able to reconfigure their plan in order to put in 90 degree parking but they may end up losing units but that is an option sure yeah i think at this point we we'd lose the spaces yeah i mean at this stage the spaces aren't required you know understand it's probably nice to have for selling units and that sort of thing but i think for my first purposes i would likely not go against what staff has recommended as comments on the plan that at the end of the day the staff needs to approve as well that's fine we appreciate it any other questions regarding site plan or are we good on the five foot are we why don't we talk about parking but the previous comment anybody else have any further questions for the applicant no thank you thank you all right is there anyone here that would like to speak for against the project i'll open it up to public comment period yes sir please state your full name and address for the record please you'll have two minutes to speak my name is Franklin Dubose i live on some of you drive which is a one neighborhood away from this proposed neighborhood project and we've been to a presentation by members of their development group and we had impression it was going to be primarily housing for the area but today i get the impression with the general commercial it could be used for something other than housing is that true or am i misinterpreting it um are you speaking of the the same case because what they're presenting is all housing it is yes sir no no general commercial it's all residential housing right yeah well the only thing i would like for the planning commission to consider is that we need additional turn lanes on the road that runs from leesburg to garner's ferry adjacent on the i guess that would be the northwest side of this property there's a road called greenview and also caroline and caroline runs right next to walmart that's on one side of this development and the other greenview is on the right hand side which is runs parallel well between leesburg road and garner's ferry that area has two two lane roads and they intersect with garner's ferry which is a heavy travel road the one on greenview does not have a right turn only lane it does have a left turn lane but with additional traffic coming out of this development with 300 homes in that area whatever the figure is going to be counts 300 cars per day two trips per day the road can't currently handle that load i don't think it needs to be improved upon to provide the turning lane on the garner's ferry to come towards columbia um the roadway itself is just not very good shape it'd be nice if that road were three lanes with a turning lane in the middle so residents and occupants of that area could get into their parking lot or their driveways without fear of someone running into the rear of them so please keep that in the mind of the planning department don't over bill if the roads can't handle it and don't wait until it's already completed to start doing the road improvement so it needs to be in the planning up front all right thank you sir thank you sir all right yes sir direct uh 1491 caroline road uh first off i'd like to support what he was saying with the extra traffic and the lanes that made a lot of sense uh my question is uh has anyone considered like the ecological effect this is going to have on the neighborhood because you're tearing down a lot of woods there's a lot of there's like family a deer there's foxes there's who knows what's living in there there's all types of animals insects if you clear that out where are they going to go except into people who are already living in neighborhood and their backyards in their homes has anyone considered that that would be something you'd have to we'd have to defer to the applicant but they're meeting standard guidelines for this type of development to have green space and those sorts of open spaces still available within the development so i'm not sure what that means like once they tear down the woods and i get more rats and things like that there's nothing i can do about that it's just it's just i don't have an answer for you on that one does it have any bearing on the planning of of this development sure i mean has it been considered like the effect that's going to happen in the neighborhood i i don't know i'm late i'm sorry can you speak to the development criteria yeah there are um there are requirements for open space so not all the land will be developed as as housing some of the area will be preserved like some of the trees um and there'll be some walking trails through there so some of the area will be preserved so the entire 25 acres won't be developed as housing about how much percentage i believe it's about from the applicant do y'all know yet your green space count this is 25 percent they're looking at about uh this is 6.3 acres of open space okay 6.3 well i don't know how much yeah so 25 percent is required and they're required and they're preserving about 40 percent looks like okay so they're meeting the minimum requirements for the land development all right thank you thank you so traffic surgery required there was and it was done there was there was there is a traffic impact study that was completed for this project and that should have recommended no off-site improvements okay i don't know that it went all the way to garner's ferry for the study area but it might not have been required to get up that meets the dot requirements in the cities then i don't know what else all right is there anyone else here from the general public that would like to speak for or against the project c and none will give the applicant a you're good applicants good okay we'll close the public comment period and mr chairman i'd like to just acknowledge for the record that you guys should have received an email yesterday we did have one email come through about this project so just to put that into the record um for e m c l heinie s c dot r dot com okay so you received received yes ma'am all right are there any other questions i have a question for staff regarding the 10 foot separation for the firewalls are we is it in our purview to require the 10 feet separation but not allow for in lieu of the five foot separation between property lines i believe that's uh you know it's going to be a building code requirement and handled by the um building code all right if there's no further questions no we'll accept a motion mr chairman i make a motion we approve uh s plat 2023 dash 0008 25.35 acres trinity drive 1458 1482 carolina road as written with staff comments got a motion we approve as written with staff comments going to get a second second got a motion in the second all in favor signify by saying aye aye any opposed no no yes have it the motion is approved and since case number six was deferred the last case on the agenda this evening is the zoning text amendment which is ta dash 2023 dash 0004 request to amend the unified development ordinance chapter 17 article 4 use regulations to add additional uses to the permitted use table for the employment campus zoning district and we don't have slides for this because it's you know just the use table in the ordinance but right i believe you have that in your packet does anybody from the city need to present anything i don't think so but only if you guys have questions are there any questions regarding this case for staff here's none i will entertain a motion i'll move to mr chairman sorry just to make sure in case there's anybody from the public okay yeah we'll open it up we'll open it up the public comment is there anybody um from the general public here that would like to speak for against case number seven see a none here and none we'll close public comment period and i'll entertain a motion i'll move to approve the zoning text amendment ta dash 2023 dash 0004 to amend the unified development ordinance chapter 17 article 4 use regulations to add additional use to the permitted use table for the ec zoning district got a motion that we approve can i get a second second got a second all in favor soon five by saying hi hi any opposed no the eyes have it the motion is approved all right is there any other business the only thing i just want to mention is if um i sent y'all an email about the richland county planning opportunity for next friday if anybody wants to go if you could just let me know um so that i could let them know who's coming um so i know that i cannot attend that particular day i can't anyone gonna go okay great you might try okay i'll just tell them that we plan on having to find commission members okay great it is yes thanks all right well there's no other business i'll accept the motion to adjourn motion to adjourn got a motion second all in favor soon by saying no any opposed no motion carries we are thank you