 If you're here 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 today to speak about a case, you must speak up when the chairperson calls for public comment. I'll go ahead and call the roll. Mr. Causey, Ms. Davis, Mr. Dinkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Frost. We have quorum. There is one change. Case number nine, which was on the regular agenda, Annex 223-0014 5706 and 5710 Fairfield Road and 602 Oakland Avenue and 721 and 731 Prescott Road has been deferred. The first item on the consent agenda is to approve the June 8, 2023 minutes. The next case is a future land use map amendment and zoning map amendment for appending annexation by Richland County. Case three, Annex 223-0013 408 Piney Woods Road and 418 Piney Woods Road request recommendation on the assignment of the land use classification of transportation and utilities and the assignment of zoning of light industrial district for appending annexation. The property is currently classified as mixed residential high density and zone light industrial by Richland County. Case number four, under major subdivision preliminary plat review, S-plat dash 2022-0070 37.52 acres at the 4,500 block of Percival Road request preliminary plat approval for the construction of a 93 lot single family residential subdivision victory woods village phase three. The property is currently zoned RM one residential mix district. Case five, under future land use map confirmation land use or LUM a dash 2023 dash 001 800 Dutch Square Boulevard request recommendation on the confirmation of the future land use classification of urban core community activity center. The property is currently signed an interim future land use classification of urban core community center community activity center. Case six, under the zoning map confirmation is ZMA dash 2023 dash 0011 800 Dutch Square Boulevard request to confirm the zoning of community activity center corridor. The property currently has an interim zoning of community activity center corridor. And finally case number seven, under zoning map amendment ZMA dash 2023 dash 0012 on the south side of I-20 at Spears Creek Church Road. A portion there of request recommendation to rezone 34.4 acres from general commercial district to residential mixed district. And that concludes the consent agenda. Hearing none. Is there anybody from the public that would like to see an item on the consent agenda removed and put on to the regular hearing? Seeing none. With none, I will entertain a motion. I'll move to approve the June 8 2023 minutes along with the consent agenda items and any staff recommendations. Got a motion to approve. Send agenda. Can I get a second? Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor. Seeing none. Aye. Any opposed? No. The ayes have it. Motion to approve. All in favor. Agenda. Okay, the first item on the regular agenda is item number eight. It is annex 2023 dash 0010. It is a group of properties at 300 Clemson Road and 200 Clemson Road, including a one acre portion that actually fronts on Spears Creek Church Road. Tax amount numbers 25700 dash 02 dash 03 a portion thereof and 25700 0205 also a portion. And the request is a recommendation on the assignment of a land use classification of community activity center corridor, which is AC two and neighborhood activity corridor AC one and the assignment of a zoning of general commercial district GC concurrent with a pending annexation. The property is currently classified as mixed use corridor and zone rural and residential single family low density by Richland County. The applicant is the property owner, but the representatives for the property are actually present. Briefly, I'd like to get into the staff recommendation on on the request. Staff is actually recommending denial of the request. And actually, I should note a brief correction in the recommendation as printed there. It says that we recommend now the annexation and the assignment of the land use and zoning. And honestly, we're just making recommendation on the land use and zoning district. The annexation is a different matter. But regardless, staff is recommending denial of the assignment of future land use classification of AC two and AC one and the zoning of GC as a requested zoning would not result in a development pattern that aligns with the recommendations of the county's comprehensive plan for that area. Richland County Council comprehensive plan states that the areas designated with a mixed use corridor future land use classification should be quote transformed over time from traditional strip commercial development to mixed use corridors connecting activity centers. And between activity centers corridors should be redeveloped to convert single story single use developments on individual lots to multi story mixed use formats that organize uses in a pedestrian friendly format. And I will note that even though it is the county's land use plan, the county and the city did jointly entered into that land use project, all that we adopted around separate portions thereof. We'd like to answer any questions. And like I said, I know the owners representative is here in present. It is the property contiguous to the city. Yes. Yeah. And it is right in front of the I believe it's called the Ash Cross subdivision, which is in the city. Does the city serve water? Yes. I guess I'm at a utility should be sewer. That's correct. With this being listed as an annex, are we not taking up the annexation component of it? Well, technically, when the Planning Commission reviews annexations, you're making recommendations on the zoning and land use. Yeah. Any other questions before we have the applicant come up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bob Follum. I'm an attorney here in Columbia, and I have I'm here this afternoon with Craig Waits, who is a real estate consultant for the property owner. I've been associated with this property for over 40 years by virtue of representation of Ms. Lee Larrick Prina, who has owned the property for almost 60 years. It was a. Tract of over 200 and some odd acres as it has now been sold after many years of being off the market for any purpose. And this remained a piece of some 15 acres is being presented to you as a proposal for general commercial property, which is consistent with what has been anticipated use since the decision was made to sell any of it for any purpose. The discussion has been ongoing for many years, is consistent with what's happening in the area. We believe it to be an appropriate zoning for annexation and zoning within the city, as well as within the county. Craig waits can address the nuances of difference between general commercial and the CAC differentiations that we deem important. And I'm going to give him the opportunity to make that presentation and respond to those matters that that may concern you. Ms. Prina initially took the fishes and this property was simply to hold the earth together. Realities do change. She's still alive at over 100 years old, but in a nursing facility in Washington, D.C. She is alert and cognizant, though she has deferred most of her decision making to others. But it was always her intention to have this property maintained in a manner that was consistent with the inference of Columbia and Richmond County as it developed, although she would have preferred that nothing happened with it. So I will give any time that I have to Craig to present and to deal with it. And if you have questions, I can address it starkly. I'll be glad to. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Craig Waits. I'm with Carrier's Real Estate Company here in Columbia. And as Mr. Fuller said, I am the real estate consultant for the property. Just to add to a little bit of the history, you know, we we've actually we've been working on the property for, I don't know, five or six years with with staff. We did was originally 227 acres, and we came up with a plan that would have Craig, can you speak a little bit? Yeah, I'm sorry. Can you hear me now, Samford? I'll lean down a little bit. Is that better? OK, so we we we've had a plan in place for about five years and it's always involved a single family, a multifamily and a commercial component. As as y'all are aware, we have developed the single family is under development with the Mungo Company. Now there's also a multifamily project that is under construction right now. Both of those particular parcels and those projects were annexed separately and they were annexed and zoned based off of the the uses. So we come now to the the commercial sector and the commercial portion of this property. And I think we all agree that in working with staff that it's it's there's obviously a level of commercial application to it. The the the. Staff is recommended a CAC zoning and more or less we would contend that it is a G.C. is is more appropriate for this area. I hope you you're able. I hope you didn't mind me sending you the email just simply because I tried to outline a little bit of what my thoughts were with regards to the differences between G.C. and and CAC. But in short, the the we there's 60 acres of G.C. zoning just to the north. In fact, that was actually rezoned from M.U. One or M.U. two. One of the two. I can't remember what the Mr. Gottlieb's property we rezoned it from it was rezoned from M.U. one M.U. two. It was in the M.U. actual zoning in the city and that was rezoned to G.C. Last year to accommodate a public's development as well as a convenient store that's planned for the corner of earth and and Clemson Road. So the you know, the G.C. district is established in the area and in fact this is established to the northern portion of the of the area away from I-20. So you would you would tend to think that the G.C. would be an applicable zoning on the southern side of that particular property closer to the to the interstate. You know, also when you're looking at the the the C.A.C. versus the G.C. zoning I was I was I was actually part of part of the the the planning process. And when we when we instead started the the new zoning ordinance and you know, I just I personally believe that the C.A.C. is a little bit more urban oriented. And if you look at it, it does discuss pedestrian friendly walkability, which I get and we and we and we want that. But you know, this is a five lane road. The car is going 50 miles an hour. It's not it's not walkable and it's, you know, a quarter of a mile from the interstate. So I feel like G.C. is more of a more appropriate zoning if you just look at the general character of the area. Thirdly, as far as uses, the one of the I guess the two things that the two uses specifically that are problematic in the G.C. would be drive through restaurants as well as as well as convenience stores. The convenience store use is not if you didn't correct me if I'm wrong. But the convenience store use is actually still allowed, but it requires that the canopy be placed in the back as opposed to the front. And for those of you that are in the real estate business and know that that that business itself that it's just it's not practical the way that the the site would be set up. So it's really it's really a deterrent for convenience store type use. So the G.C. does allow that. And I do feel like this area and this particular property portions of this property are tailored to drive through restaurants and in convenience stores. And so that would be important for the for the G.C. zoning as well. And then I guess, lastly, the the the the I guess my last point is that the mixed use from the county is really not a one to one. I mean, it's defined by mixed use. But if you look at what what the definitions are and what they include and what they don't include, it's a it's a blend. I mean, it's the CAC and the G.C. And in fact, the the the the the description itself even says that G.C. is an applicable zoning in the mixed in a mixed use corridor. So and then if you look at the county's land use map, I mean, it includes all of Tunis Road, which is, you know, dotted with convenience stores and drive through restaurants. And so for all for all those reasons, I would, you know, ask that the through the planning commission consider the G.C. zoning as opposed to the CAC as a part of the annexation. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions from the planning commission? Was this part of the original Ashcroft? No, no, it was we it was all part of the original 20 227 acres that the prenatal property owned. And we ultimately subdivided the property. We've survived twice thus far. We sold off 180 acres to the Mungo, which became Ashcroft. And then we sold off another 20 acres to a Charlotte developer for the multifamily. And then we have this left. So we've actually only done two transactions, but on both of those we brought individually, we brought those in through annexation and zoned them for those particular uses at that time. So it wasn't part of or was part of the initial larger parcel? Yeah, well, it was I would I would reframe it to say that Ashcroft was actually part of our parcel, as opposed to us being part of Ashcroft, if that makes make sense. Some annex, but yeah. Any additional questions for the applicant? Thank you. Is there anybody else here from the general public that would like to speak for or against the project? Nobody else. Is there any questions from the commission to staff regarding GC versus any other zoning? I mean, I would say that I didn't read Craig's email. There's a lot of valid points in here. There's GC just to the north of it. In my mind, it makes a lot of sense to be GC. So it feels right for this area for me. It might not be planned if I'm a resident in these neighborhoods. I think GC feels right for what personally I would like to see. I think you're more of a mix of potential developments in the area. Cinda, can staff elaborate a little bit more on the removal of the annexation portion and how that ties into how we're classifying the zoning without that? Thanks for the question. It's not it was not really the removal of it's just that whenever the Planning Commission makes recommendations to City Council about properties that are going to be annexed, the Planning Commission recommendation pertains only to the recommended land use and the recommended zoning. And then City Council looks at the other things that are considered within annexation. So this is standard for the procedural part. It was just that there was a missed, I mean, we just accidentally put that into the recommendation that it included a recommendation on the annexation. That was just a typo, but it's not really changed the recommendation. So for the public and everybody else, we are to go into the assumption that it is going to be annexed and our recommendation is. Yeah, the recommendation will go to Council either way, correct, and they'll make that decision. Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, I'll accept the motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve annex 2023 dash zero zero one zero, 9.1 acre portion, 15.4 acre portion and one acre portion of 300 Clemson Road for the Assignment of Zoning of General Commercial for pending annexation. Second. Got a motion to approve, got a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. And we'll pose no. The ayes have it, the motion is approved. And the final case on the agenda is a text amendment. This is TA 2023 dash zero zero zero three, request to amend the unified development ordinance, chapter 17, article four, use regulations to remove the Fort Jackson spacing requirement for body piercing and tattoo establishments. And a copy of that change to the text is included in your packet. And if you have any specific questions about it, Ms. Hastie is here to get into details. There was a thousand foot setback requirement off of the Fort Jackson area, and now they're just removing that one. Correct. Is there anybody here, does Planning Commission have any questions for staff, any concerns? And is there anybody here in the general public that would like to speak for or against this? Hearing none, I will accept that motion. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve TA two zero two three dash zero zero zero three. Got a motion to approve, gonna get a second. Second. Got a motion on second, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed, no. The ayes have it. I don't think we do. I'll accept the motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. We'll adjourn.