Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Come on. [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] All right. Good afternoon. Welcome planning commission members, staff, and guests to the August 2025 planning commission session. Uh me 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 public comment. And I'll go ahead and call the role. Mr. Cosy

here. Mr. Cook here. Mr. Hulcom here, Mr. Osorio here, Miss Cubny here, and Mr. Con here. We have a quorum.

Thank you. I'll give a brief uh 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 applicant such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. The time limit does not include any questions asked by the planning commission or staff regarding the request. During the public comment period, members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns in intervals of 2 minutes. And after the public comment period, applicants may have five minutes to respond. The administrator has a timer and will make presenters aware of when their time has expired. And the planning commission reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case-byase basis. And then are there any changes to the agenda?

Not since publication.

All right, we'll go through the consent agenda. 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 would like to discuss an item on the consent agenda, you must speak up after the consent agenda is read. Then that item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the meeting. The planning commission then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Will staff please read the consent agenda. Certainly. First is um to approve the July 10th, 2025 minutes. Um, second on the consent agenda under future land use amendment and zoning amendment for a pending annexation is annex-2025-000015 at 3404 Two Notch Road, 3422 Notch Road and 1138 Head Street. request recommendation on the assignment for the land use classification of community activity corridor AC2 and the assignment of zoning of community activity center corridor CAC for a pending annexation. The property is currently classified as mixed residential highdensity and zoned general commercial by Richland County. Third is annex-2025-000016 1027 Rosewood Drive request recommendation on the assignment of the land use classification of urban core neighborhood activity center UCAC1 and the assignment of zoning of mixeduse district MU2 for impending annexation. The property is currently classified as mixed residential highdensity and zoned general commercial by Richland County.

Case four um under zoning map amendment is ZMA 20250016 1125 Rosewood Drive. Request recommendation to reszone the property from community activity center corridor district CAC to mixeduse district MU2. Case five under zoning text amendment TA-20225-000011 2608 Cardinal Street request recommendation to amend the unified development ordinance chapter 17 appendix C type 3 landmarks to establish the property as a city of Columbia landmark. Case six under preliminary plat review splat-2025-000054 approximately 2.6 6 acres on South Ridge Way. Request preliminary plat approval for the construction of a 19 lot single family residential attached development, the South Ridge Town Homes. The property is zoned PD plan development in Wood Creek Farms. and K7 major site plan review SP plan-2025-000011 631 Sumpter Street 1215 and 1229A Blossom Street 630 and 636 Main Street south of Divine 60 614D and 618E Sumpre Street 1309A 1311B 1313 C 1325A Blossom Street, 611F, and 613G Marian Street. Request major site plan approval for the construction of public dormitories, the new honors college residence, and new Sumpter Street housing, uh, McBride replacement. The properties are zoned ins OBVCC, which is institutional

general district within the city center design overlay district. And that concludes the consent agenda. Thank you. Is there anyone from the planning commission or the public that would like any item removed from the consent agenda? Yes. Uh items two or excuse me, the two from Rosewood Drive. Yes. Okay. Uh, can I get a motion to remove items three and four from the consent agenda to the regular agenda?

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we remove items three and four from the consent agenda to the We have a motion. Can I get a second? Second. All those in favor? I I. Any opposed? All right. Um items three and four will be on the regular agenda from the consent. Mr. Chair, I need to recuse myself from the remaining items in the consent agenda because my company Cox and Denkins is involved in item seven. So,

okay. Um All right. Are there any members of the public that have any items you'd like to remove for discussion? All right, seeing none, I'll take a motion to approve the July minutes and the August consent agenda. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the July 10, 2025 minutes and the remaining items on the consent agenda. We have a motion. Can I get a second? Second. All those in favor? I I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you.

Probably well, let's see. Let's go through the rest of the agenda first. Um, [Music] we have to read That's okay. All right. We will now um move to the regular agenda which will include the two items we removed from the consent agenda. Um we will use the following outline for the regular agenda. The administrator will introduce and review the case. Applicants will have 10 minutes to make a presentation. The planning commission may ask questions. The public comment period will be open for those present. And after the public comment period is closed, the applicant may have 5 minutes to respond to the public comments. The planning commission may ask additional questions of the applicant. Then there'll be deliberation and action by the planning commission. Hi, good afternoon. Um, so I will actually be introducing two cases if it is okay with the commission. Uh, both this annexation and the map amendment. They are related applications. So, it may be useful to talk about both of them at the same time. Of course, you will need separate motions for for each case. Um, and of course, they are separate for the main reason that one is an annexation and one

is a reasonzoning. Um, so the first case is 1027 Rosewood Drive, a tax map number 1120303. And um it this is a request for a recommendation on the assignment of the land use classification of urban core neighborhood activity center uh which is UCAC1 and the assignment of zoning of mixeduse district mu2 for a pending annexation. Uh the property is currently classified as mixed residential highdensity and zoned general commercial by Richland County. Um this is about a 1.8 8 acre uh parcel that is currently used as a uh parking area. And then the um related map amendment is 1125 Rosewood Drive, tax number 112070403. And this is a request a recommendation to reszone the property from community activity center corridor district CAC to mixed use district MU2. Um and the acreage on this one is about 3.31 acres and uh uh you may be familiar with it as existing seaw walls. Uh the the applicant is here and I'm sure may be able to answer questions.

Okay. Thank you. Uh would the applicant be available to speak to the application question? Yes,

you can come to the podium please. Hey, my name is George McCutchen. Um, live at 4537 Nandina Drive, Columbia 29206. Um, been working with the Seawols family for a number of years. Um, they have a great business that they want to continue in a different location. Um but they are ready to retire and this is a great location. Um we had started out with a very high density student housing project in years past and have scaled that back to this type of development uh that we thought would be wellreceived uh from the neighborhood uh better received than maybe the much higher density version uh and going even taller. Um, I'll let Tom tell us more about the project if he'd like, but um, anyway, we think it's a good project and good for the area and good, um, with the location that it's at out on Rosewood, not being further back, um, there. Thank you.

Yes, good evening. Um we uh we have done some uh preliminary civil engineering on the project. Just mind telling us your name? I'm sorry. I'm Tom Canarella. I'm with CES Group Engineers. Thank you. Uh we've done some due diligence and some conceptual planning of what we could get there with the MU2 zone. Um the intention is to do a residential development of town h town homes uh in compliance with the MU2 zoning regulations. So, that's what I could kind of tell you right now. I don't know if you have any specific questions for me or the applicant or the owner, but you have a preliminary plan. Yes.

Yeah. Um, would you would you want me to

Yeah, with the staff your staff has uh has seen that. Sure. Does that Sure. And Mr. Cuz just as a reminder, your microphone I think it was off. Sorry. I guess I requested for it to be moved. So just I'm neither for nor against it. M Mr. Cosy, your microphone is not on. So I'm I'm neither for nor against this. Just trying to better understand the project. Yeah. From from my view, changing it

from a zoning of CAC to MU2 is somewhat of a downgrade. think that corridor it should be a commercial corridor um just based on its surroundings, its location, uh but but still open to kind of why you think differently and and what conversations, if any, you may have had with some of the neighboring commercial buildings.

Yeah. Well, we've had maybe three pre-application meetings and so we've been through like three different refined uh conceptual plans for this project, but no, I agree with you as far as like it could be much more intense in that area. You know what I mean? You can have apartment buildings and you know that sort of thing. But what they're looking to do is something a little different and have a beautiful community of single family town homes you know in that area with open space um you know walking paths and and you know interconnectivity to the rest of the community. Um

and yeah I mean uh Steve um McNair is the applicant here. We're uh Steve McNair. I live in Greenville, South Carolina. 209 Anado Court. Uh my company's Palmetto Alliance Property Group. Uh we've been active in urban infield projects in the Greenville area. We trying to bring that same theme down here to Columbia. We understand from the Sewell family on this past plan that they were trying to put together was very t intense development and it was putting 20 pounds in a 10 pound bag, so to speak. I think the neighbors in and in and around this project, they are showing some appreciation this being downsized to, you know, not biggie sized, but downsized a bit in terms of scope, in terms of density on that site. Uh, we've got a quality builder, threetory town homes. Uh, I think it's going to be a very good product. It's going to be very well accepted. We're hearing a lot of feedback. Yeah, I want I want one. I want one. I want one. So, that's generally it. Yes, that's a busy busy corridor there. There's no question about that. Uh uh I think the residents in that area uh I don't believe they're going to show up and protest this, but otherwise I think they would if it was a a fivetory edifice there. I think it would get a lot of push back, you know, for traffic is already pretty bad in that area. You know, game time particularly. So I think we think residential is a good fit for the project. If you all have any other questions, be happy to answer.

Uh I I have a question for staff. So I don't recall seeing the site plan in the packet. We we generally do not include site plans with resonings uh because resonings are not site plan specific. So your question I think the concern I would also have is uh is that site plan going to have to come back for review? It it would come to the planning commission for site plan review. Yes. Is it 26? Um I believe it's 26 or more. Yes.

Um and and just to briefly address the differences between the districts. I mean, you know, we did provide some cut sheets there, but um they're both generally the same intensity of development. Um the mixeduse development um does allow many different commercial uses. Um there are some parts of town that are almost exclusively commercial right now that that are zoned MU2. Um one of the main differences is that uh I believe CAC allows for 75 ft in height. MU2 limits it to 60. Um and of course MU2 does allow more residential types of of developments. So MU2 allows town houses, single families

Mhm. structures whereas CAC does not,

right? I mean that that is um that that's basically I mean there are some additional differences but but that is a significant difference between the two. And um you know as staff we um you know certainly CAC is appropriate. We also feel MU2 is appropriate. There are other districts that we would not feel would be as appropriate like for example a residential district we don't think would be appropriate at this location. So is the only is the only material difference some of the single family allowable uses uh outside of maybe the height which I think I mean 65 or 70 is the same impact there visually like on the dwelling units

what I don't recall any other uses that would be of concern but

right I mean in in in both cases there's a um um you there's there's no maximum density in in either district. Um you know there there's also likewise not a maximum lot coverage. Um yeah we do have open space requirements etc. But but but in terms of that there's there's no difference between sorry no difference between the two. Uh the front yard setbacks are are both um about the same. there's a uh I think actually it's a it's a zero front yard uh setback uh in in MU2 whereas in CAC it's five but uh rear yard setback is uh greater in CAC than MU2 but of course there's there's uh transitional buffer yard requirements that would that would buffer things across the way uh but yeah in terms of uses yes there are some uses that are out allowed in MU2 that are not in in DAC and and those types of uses are the residential types of uses.

Oh yeah, there's cottage neighborhood too. Excuse me. So, can the developer do what they want to do under the existing zoning or not? No. Okay. Just want to make sure I'm clear on that. But you you are allowed to do multifamily and mixed use in the current zoning. You just can't build single family, right? Or or or town homes.

That that would be my biggest question is if we allow a reasonzoning MU2, you're able to bring the product that sits directly behind the site to the forefront on Rosewood, which I feel is wildly inappropriate for that corridor. and it would be allowed for future owners, per se, or if we if we I guess a follow-up question would be to staff. If some of these other sites requested annexation between George Rogers and this site, would the recommendation there be to go to MU2 or would it be to remain with that CAC that's currently in place?

Um, that's a little bit hypothetical. But um I don't know if it would be our primary recommendation, but I it it would seem to be likewise appropriate as as a classification. Yeah, it's just a single family for me. I just don't think that being allowed like if this were you wanted to get the project approved and we were allowing a variance to the use and it was just for your use, I'd probably be more on board with that. I just knowing that single family could one day come to the forefront of that street is hard for me to get over.

I I can't speak to that, but I can say that we're multif family, not single family. I mean, this these are town homes. There's not single family houses. I think the cost of the property would prohibit uh any single family development there. I mean, it's it's economically it would not be feasible to do single family in that location in the future. The price of that property to go in there and knock down town homes. We got 71 town homes going in and to knock those down and restart over again and just to do single family residential. It would not be feasible. Multif family. Well, I consider town homes multif family. I mean, you may or may not. It's just, you know, they're attached product. It's not detached product.

But the city considers, this is a question for staff, town homes as single family. Correct. It is a single family attached product and and our definition talks about the building versus um necessarily how it is used on the lot. I believe in this case and correct me if I'm wrong but but but your thought was it was individual lots or or just one single lot but I mean we could um we could pass out um do you not have the concept for that? We've not seen the No. And again, you know, the just to be clear, the the reszoning cannot be made um conditional on any any site plan,

right? So So, right, when when you're approving the district, you're approving all all the uses and and characteristics of that district, but I just want to like confirm that it's like they're attached, you know, they look like a part. I mean, right, they look like apartment building, you know, like uh like, you know, uh I mean, I know you have different definitions that we went over quite a bit in your regulations about a townhouse, townhouse versus apartment, you know, versus So, when we say single family, they're individual lots is what we're looking at doing right now, but they're town homes and they're attached. So you might have I think it was seven that you can attach in in a line.

So So that is that so they can be sold separately. Yes. Yeah. Okay. And what we've kind of looked at is we're not looking at two or three. There's 71 that we're anticipating could be in these areas. So I just wanted to give that little bit of clarification. And it wasn't like five lots that we were like, you know, looking to subdivide like you wouldn't be able to do that on, you know, too many too many lots. I mean, I think I think I share the similar concerns of Mr. Kazy. But, you know, if we had the site plan have to come back before us. Yeah.

To have the assurance it doesn't turn into a cluster of what's directly behind. Maybe that would probably help me. And to reiterate, I'm not necessarily against what you're trying to do. It's I can probably pull 10 previous cases we've had where we have not approved a zoning because not because of the project before us, but because of what could happen later based on the allowable uses in that zoning.

Well, if you Yeah, again, I understand if you but if you look at the concept plan, 71 units is tightly configured. You're talking about 3540 million in sales there. uh you're talking about, you know, a very high dense site. The chances that that's going to get bowled over in the next 50 years is pretty much minuscule. Um and again, I I think a five-story edifice there would not fit well because of traffic and and the neighbors just in the back. I mean, they they didn't like the student housing project that was planned to go there. And we've got some very positive response from some of the neighbors to the SeaWorld family, you know, hey, we like what you guys are doing there. Now, I guess the you don't have conditional district resoning, right? Or is that uh something? No. Um so I just the chances to far as I can see it, you know, been in the development business almost 45 years now and don't see that ever getting bowled over and being a reuse reusable site and maybe certainly not in my lifetime. Maybe not even yours, but you know, it's like but any event but I understand. Um, any any any more questions from from us or let's see any commission members have any other questions? [Music] Um, does I do I do have one other question. So if there's 20 under 26, is there ability to subdivide this and then not have to come back after we do that? The zoning would stick um to to subdivide it and not come back. Um kind of depends on the type of subdivision it is. Um, but there could be a subdivision that that would not require a review and um, it could also

be a development that would not require review. Um, again, I'm I'm not a U real estate appraiser. Um, nor do I have a crystal ball. I I I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the statements about the um, you know, the value of the property versus what would be built there, but you know, I can't say that with certainty. I have one more question for the applicant with the, you know, it's right across the street from the fairgrounds and there's all those events. Do you guys expect to see like any disturbances to people living there from like the sound, the, you know, traffic that can come and all the events? Well, it it's a lifestyle choice. It's a high energy district. Uh I think you're going to going to weigh and measure that before you move in, you know, and I think that's pretty pretty much it. And I think that, you know, personally, I'm interested. I'm a Gamecock and I'm interested in a unit in there myself. So, I won't complain too much about it, but it it but to your question, yeah, I think that's a decision somebody's got to make on the front end. Yes. High traffic, game times, it's insane out there. There's no question about it. But uh I understand your question. Sure. Yeah.

I think I would I mean just to put out it's hard to overcome not having the assurance that a higher and better use is there and not stepping down. And to to your point, I'm I'm I think it's a great idea. It's if that didn't didn't happen, we've now approved it to be used in a way that I think is is not a good thing. If there's a bunch of small houses put there like what's behind um guess I'm that's my thoughts. I mean, I appreciate where the idea it seems like that the what you're trying to do would could be done under the other uses. Um, anyhow, any other comments from commissioners, discussion? [Music] I just wanted to ask if you guys if that's okay. Is there any mechanism that the city could allow us to, you know, like with this applicant, this project move through, you know, like if we were to do it, cuz I understand your your hesitancy of like if this didn't go through and it's zoned that way, then somebody else came in and did something else.

You can change the change the zoning after the fact. You'd have to go back and after the structure was there. Well, yeah, it the property could be deed restricted. So, we're not allowed to do that.

Yeah, we we are I get it. I get it. I get it. Yes, I understand. So, I like I like your idea. I think the concern we all we at least I have and I'll speak for the others is if that didn't come to fruition, we've granted the right to do something there that I think would be a concern. Well, and that's what I was saying like a conditional like if you because you're just giving a recommendation, right, to the to the council and it has to go through two council readings if I'm correct. Right.

That's correct. But what I'm wondering is if you were to give this applicant your re if it was to happen. I'm not um you know assuming how you're going to vote, but I'm just saying if you were to give this applicant your recommendation contingent on getting like you know like the the plan approved, you know, or maybe we go through the council meeting one time and then we get through the you know get through the rest of the process before going back for the second reading. like is there a mechanism that we could do that or

I think you know what maybe I would put on the table is a motion to defer so that there maybe is additional month of time to get clarification around that. I would I would not want to give you guidance for something that's incorrect and and I you know I'm all for helping people find a way to do it. I think it would just be the concern if if it didn't proceed. Um, we can't take that back from you. Then do do you have plan unit development zoning? There's no PD zoning in in the city. Plan development where you can write the script pretty much and you can limit, you know, you can certainly you can exclude certain uses in the future. You can, you know, you can be a little more clear as to the the

I think we've gotten away from a lot of that, but I mean that's certainly something you could talk to staff about. Okay. I might be able to provide a little bit of clarity on both of those things. uh you know we we cannot make a reszoning conditional upon a a site plan. Uh in terms of the plan development district that is an option in our ordinance. However, uh importantly the um the state supreme court requires that it be a mixeduse development be mixed use. Okay. Yes. So um it but we can certainly talk about that if that was an option you want to look at look at.

Okay. But um you know regardless uh you know assuming the applicant wants to go forward regardless of the recommendation of the planning commission it it would move forward to the um the September uh zoning public hearing just it would go with your recommendation either for approval or or denial.

Okay. So I mean we're okay with deferring you know need more clarity certainly understand that and uh we're willing to provide whatever clarity we can. We do stand steadfast that it is a very high-end quality project and a great location and it would sell great there and there's a lot of value to be created there not only for the city but also for the future residents that will live there because it's close proximity to downtown a lot of the businesses you can live you can live work there you know as well I know we actually would people would work there and we wouldn't actually sell them as live work units but um that's um

let let me ask how far along are you on the construction plans We, you know, typically we don't order civil until we get, you know, pretty far along with it. Now, we have had several back and forths with the with staff. We have gone in, we we've listened to them very intently. We've made modifications as far as the orientation of the houses to the streets, whether they're rear load, whether they're front load, the widths of the streets and so forth, which would be um so I think we got to a pretty good sense of equilibrium with staff if I'm if I interpreted it correctly that um but the way they're oriented, meaning the setbacks, uh getting, you know, not putting 20 pounds in 10 pound bag, so to speak, but we got a good density that we're comfortable with, our builder's comfortable with it. Um, so but to answer your question, we on 10%

civil at least. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think there's been a significant amount of time and effort spent working on what you produced. Yes.

I'm sorry. We know where the water sewer is. We know the, you know, the road configurations. We know what changes we'd have to make. We've adhered to the setback requirements, the density requirements, uh, height requirements. Um we've looked at um you know all the entry points that we would use and u we're not really making a significant change in terms of the driveway placements. The driveways will be off the perpendicular streets that run perpendicular to Rosewood versus and you can see that on the concept plan. Um but we're ready you know once we get through approval process and we we have it as and we'll get a green light then we'll we'll begin you know significant amount of hard civil design at that particular point in time. But we know we got the water. We know we got the sewer. I think we got the uh the the driveway permits, you know, locations that we need. And so I think we've got quite a bit of detail with us.

You've met with DAT and you know about your water and sewer. Um are the seaw wells going to retain ownership as it be during the development process property? Seaw wells are selling the property. Okay. To to your group. Okay. That's correct. Gotcha. That sale has not occurred yet. Okay. Has not occurred. No. No. where it's conditioned upon, you know, reszoning, annexation, and so forth. Any further questions?

I just would say I don't, you know, if the motion is to defer, I'm not sure what we're deferring for. So, it needs to be really clear, I think. Just for clarification, is it that the town homes can't be built there because the current zoning cons or I guess because the town homes are considered single family and the current zoning doesn't allow for single family. Is that

right? It's it's a type of residential use that that's not allowed in the CAC district. So it it is a single family attached structure. It's it's single family to the extent that a single family can only live in one unit. Exactly. But uh it is going to be for sale product, but it it is it is attached product. Some municipalities consider town homes multif family. Some others don't. You know, semantics. I'm not sure what the difference is, but uh

well, I think of apartments as people living on top of other people. I mean, I think that's the distinction. One of the distinctions anyway, well, I don't want to speak incorrectly here, but if if they're not separate TMS numbers assigned to all of these units, would it still stay multif family if there's one? And then they could come back and apply for the ability then to subdivide and reszone or sell them if they were all in one lot. Yeah.

Um so as our ordinance has written right now, they are still classified as town homes based off the building type. Um however, you know that that that can certainly be an item for discussion.

So if I may, um a horizontal regime would be They're not individual lots due to just the footprint of the houses. No lots. Everything else is common area on the site and just like multif family that is done in town home communities. Now, I'll say that to say that, you know, we would have to speak to our builder and make sure that there's no in financing mechanisms that that type of horizontal regime would cause any heartburn or angst, you know, from any of the lenders that might be looking mortgage on the mortgage lending side of it. Um, I think it can be done, but again, we would have to talk to our builder to make sure that we could do that. But it that would I guess where I'm going is I I would like to see a way to find to help you and find assurance that what we're concerned with would be like both sides are being kind of covered here.

Yeah. um if that's a way to get to the same end so that in the event the project for some unforeseen reason didn't materialize we haven't granted the right to come build single family houses

and and that's understood um I think that yeah so if it were a horizontal regime I think that would probably assuage your concerns about being uh future single family houses there because it's a horizontal regime it would not be single family you couldn't cut it into single family lots um not sure yet whether our builder would agree to that. We would have to check with them. But in terms of um maybe looking at a PDD, we certainly wouldn't, you know, we would consider that. We've done it plenty of times. We're doing it in other markets right now. Uh we we're doing it in Hermo on a project there. We've done a PD on the lake there. And that is um very intense with a development agreement and a lot of stipulations, a lot of things about use, density, height, uh certain amount of retail, but it's a mixeduse project. So to the staff's point, you know, the we did a a PD, but we're doing mixed use there versus what we'll be doing here.

Let me come come back to just to get clarification around my question. So if if there was still a CAC zoning, this project advanced as multif family, then they applied to become MU2, would they have the ability to subdivide those or sell those as individual units then if the zoning was changed after the project? Oh, I I see. Um, so right now this building type is not allowed in the CAC district. um in order for it to be allowed in the CAC district and and be classified as multif family, we would have to do a text amendment to our UDO. Um but if that happened then and certainly that would be an option. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments,

Mr. Chair? Like um you know, we've had issues like this come before where we think the project presented as a very good project. We think it might be very doable, but obviously we have a broader concern about the longer more permanent effect of a decision and I've seen in at least one other case where we were able to defer that and it was brought back and we were brought to a good conclusion. Um I don't know the minutia on this if that's a possibility or if it's something that is even going to help, but I'd hate to see this project put down because of some uncertainty. um when I think that most of us agree that if it as presented happens, we would be in favor of it. So, I I just just wanted to throw that that you know, again, I've seen that happen before. I'd hate for us to end something that could possibly be good for the property, but also assuages our concerns, if that makes sense.

Yeah, I think it sounds like there's a way to make these guys able to do what they want to do, but this may not be the right route. That's what I'm hearing.

So, to defer to look a little more intently at your concerns and what we might be able to do uh statutoily to circumvent those concerns or meet to assuage those concerns. Um, you know, we're we're we're all for it if we could, you know, if we 30-day timeout and let's let's talk about let's see what we've come up with. Let us get with staff. uh let us talk to our builder. Uh let's see exactly where we are in real time and what we can do to where you know you all are comfortable that you know what we're going to do there. We're going to do there number one and it's not going to be left you know an open site there where you know it opens itselves up to maybe some uses that you all may inadvertently approved. I I feel like there's a way to ease the collective concerns and help. we can't tell you what to do, but I think there's has to be some ways where we can find comfort in that. Like I think if I think I speak for if if you can do that, that would be fantastic, but

um Sure. the concern is if it didn't happen. Um but there's probably some way to do that. Sure. That may take a little bit of just working through maybe not here.

Yeah, we can. Sometimes we've deferred a third reading on zoning, you know, for for a while till we can kind of get our, you know, feet firmly on the ground and and have all the capital in place, have our civil design, you know, to a point to where, you know, it's it's clear and absolute. uh you know a third reading is you know if it could be deferred or tabled you know I don't know statutoily again I'm not sure if that can be done but those are some things that we'd be willing to look at and to make sure that you know everybody's comfortable that you know what we intend to do we're going to do and we're not going to leave you know the situation is kind of flapping in the wind so to speak all right well I I appreciate it um there any further discussion

yeah thank thank Thank you all. Thank you. Um my only question I guess for my fellow commissioners is I mean I guess I would concerned that if the project falls through that they'll have single family detached homes there in the future. That would be yes. I I don't think this corridor is appropriate for single family housing. And if that is ever an option, I think it's in the city's best interest to guard against that. And Ryan, you're specifically referring to single family detached, correct? Okay. Yeah. May I ask why? Because it's a commercial corridor. Okay.

Do we need if we consider a motion separately or together? Right. You you'll have to do motions for each one of these cases separately. Okay.

Yeah. Um, well, I had plenty of discussion. I appreciate everyone's input and talking through this and I think trying to find a way to make this work would be great. Having said that, um, can we get a motion on the first item that was put from consent to the regular agenda for the annexation? Quick question for staff. How specific does this need to be? Can it just be that we defer it? There need There's no side text, no pending. We've discussed as a whole kind of what moving forward could look like. Can the motion be a simple motion or does it need to have some parameters?

Yeah, I think it can be pretty simple. Yeah, just make sure to list the the address and all that stuff and the case number. Perfect. Uh, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we defer uh annex 2025-000016, 1027 Rosewood Drive, TMS number 11203- 05- 03. Uh request requesting recommendation on assignment of land use classification of urban core neighborhood activity center and the assignment of zoning mixeduse district 2 for appending annexation. We have a motion. Can I get a second?

Second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? No. We get a roll call. Mr. Cosy. Uh, yes. Mr. Cook, yes. Mr. Hulkcom, nay. Mr. Asorio, no. Miss Cubny, yes. And Mr. Con? Yes. The motion passes.

All right. Can we get a motion on the subsequent item? [Music] Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we defer ZMA 2025-000016 1125 Rosewood Drive, TMS number 11207- 04-03. uh request recommendation to reszone the property from community activity center corridor district to mixeduse district mu2. We have a motion. Can I get a second?

Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? No. All right. Can we do roll call on that two, please? Yes. Mr. Cosy? Yes. Mr. Cook? Yes. Mr. Hulcom? Nay. Mr. Oorio, no. Miss Coy, yes. And Mr. Con? Yes. Motion passes. All right. 42. Before we move to the next one, I I would like to tell you I appreciate you speaking and having a collaborative approach to trying to find a solution here and I hope we can get there on the next one. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you all. All right. Okay. The uh the next item on our agenda is 21107 and 2115 Senate Street. Uh two separate tax map numbers. uh 11460920 and 1146917. And this proposal is a request to uh a request for a recommendation to reszone the property from residential mixed district RM1 to mixed use district MU1. Um combined the the acreage is approximately42 acres and um I did want to talk just briefly about the staff recommendation in this case. So, so we do um find that the the classification is is consistent with all the plans and and the future land use classification. We do note that if if these two parcels are reszoned, it will leave a bit of an awkward um you know, I guess um to borrow a phrase from my my old role donut hole of of RM1. Uh however uh for for the reasons uh stated about the existing plans and the uh future land use we do recommend approval and the applicant is here and and can answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Will the applicant be able to speak?

Hi good afternoon. I'm Shaunie Lee. I'm the advocate for 21107 and 2115 to reszone those two properties from residential to mixed use just to give a different variety in the community pending any questions.

Yeah. Uh so I just was looking here on the sort of map here. Uh are you guys affiliated with the SNM mansion that's kind of on the adjacent property? Yes, that's correct. So, do you have any plans? Is that part of the same property or what is the plans I guess for that the property if reszoneed? No. Um, those is not my properties. Um, those are I wanted to get it reszone to use the back door of my property for events cuz I am at a residential the other properties are residential area. So, it help.

Gotcha. So, one of the reasons why I bring that up is I was just looking over this and kind of looking at the application and um I have a business in five points and you know it has come up that that particular property has had a lot of issues with the city of police department uh with having unauthorized events with having um you know unlicensed events, a lot of trash in the neighborhood like you know they go they'll be there'll be you know leftover event stuff and and I have no idea. I mean, I've not seen that with my own eyes, but that's what I've heard from the Columbia Police Department that it's kind of a somewhat of a nuisance issue. Uh, so I just, you know, what I gives me concern that to push that into a even further into a residential neighborhood. I just, and again, I'm not accusing you of doing anything. I just that's just something that I'm that I'm aware of.

Oh, yes. Um, I was aware of that, too. I already um talked to the the department as well as the communities as well. So everything was rectified and that wasn't on my behalf um that the parties and stuff that happened, but I also talked to safe Mr. Lucas and other residential owners in there as well too. I didn't have any problem with it.

You any additional questions? Have you spoken to your immediate neighbors and yes so forth? I also have a letter as well from the pastor um right up um the road on chaplain chaplain memorial as well too. I was to the neighbors in favor I present. Huh? In favor of the res. Yes. Mhm. And the owners of the property um as well the apartments in the back and neighbors around. All right. You said you were or were not the owner of the those partials. I'm not the owner of those partials. Okay. I got permission from them. Yes. Okay. Mhm.

Any additional questions? Just one more question. So that the SNM mansion business, is that currently licensed as a a bar or what what what is that licensed as? It's um currently licensed as a event space. Gotcha. Okay. And what were the violations? y'all were accused of doing for for or the previous I mean again what that property what was the issue with that. All I know is there was some kind of issue that No, I think there was one where they had um they said that we had a lot of people out there but I didn't get any tickets or anything like that from from the fire marshall or sled or anything like that. So Okay. So it's a vent space not a bar. It's

event space. That's correct. Okay. Question for staff. There's a little piece of land just to the west of this application. Um, is that going to leave a donut hole there with a So, I'm still talking to the property owner of that um piece of property as well, the little strip in white. Yes, that's correct. Um, so, so yes, it would it would leave it RM1 until we receive an application andor if it would be reszoned.

I'm curious why you wouldn't reszone that piece or attempt to. Well, I haven't um gotten the permission from the owner yet. That's why I'm still working with You don't own it? No, I don't own No, I don't own none of those properties that I'm resing. You're representing the owners? Yes, that's correct. Okay. The owner has signed off on this uh yes with a letter of agency. And let make sure I'm clear. Is it the same owner that owns this little track that I'm referring to? Excuse me. Is it the same owner? This applicant?

No. The um this um the two owners, those are the same that I I did the application for. The last one is a different it's a completely different owner side. Okay. And you said that you were pursuing this because you want to install a back entrance. No, I want to like I have a lot of people that want to do outdoor weddings and birthday parties and stuff and right now I'm not able to use those to use the back door as well. Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there any members left in the public that would like to speak on behalf? Sure. If you could come up. Thank you. I'm from uh South Carolina. I mean Charleston, South Carolina, and I'm here in support of uh my partner. There's a new project that has been implemented into uh this facility. Would you mind telling us your name? Uh my name is Joseph Bailey. Joseph Bailey.

Yes, sir. And uh we made a full commitment to utilizing the facility to make a difference in the community. So there's even a website is I have a dream toglobal.com. We're putting on a bunch of events and renting out the facility. But everything from that platform is a mission for the community. So, with just hearing what the young man just said, and she told me a little bit of concerns already, we will make every adjustment for that for the traffic. I mean, um, as far as the, uh, the trash, as far as the, uh, just everything you mentioned. I took a note of everything you just mentioned and, um, even the security, somebody just always watching over everything, being conscious of everybody that's next to them. So, we will take all of those things in in in consideration. And thank you for the opportunity. [Music] uh conversation for Commissioner Cook. Do you you mentioned there's been some events down there that were

Yeah. So, yeah, this has been a big effort from the city to kind of

the Columbia Police Department specifically mentioned that uh to the Five Points Association as it being sort of a nuisance area. I I have no idea if it's a current ownership different. You know, my my thing is that I think that we would all get together on this being a community gathering space or space for weddings and things like that, but to the previous cases point, anything can happen in event space. And we've been particularly sensitive in file points over the years about bars moving into sort of residential neighborhoods. It's been a big issue that everybody I'm sure knows about, but um this seems to be the possibility of a almost a loophole without having to go through that without having to get permission to do that. You're able to have the same kind of functions that you would. Um, and again, I I'm making no at all accusations or assumptions that the the applicant would do anything that would not be completely um, you know, perfectly fine. But again, that to me is my concern is pushing back into a residential neighborhood with the ability to have large parties and functions. If it was a bar, I don't think it would be be here in front of us.

I guess I have a question. Does this fall under the the scope the scope of having the parking requirements that are no longer there is no parking requirement in MU1. Yeah. At previous events that at this location again I have no idea if it's the applicant there there was a lot of concern with parking at the food line across the street that caused a lot of

I remember hearing about that. So um with the excuse me so with the parking I do have agreement with the pastor as well. I use the parking upside the hill to prevent the parking at five points and at uh the property owners establishment. So any further discussion currently? I mean you can they can still have events there, right? Correct. On the front.

Just on the back. Mhm. All right. Um, we got a motion. Uh, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to deny the zoning and map amendment ZMA 2025-000014 21107 and 2115 Senate Street TMS number 1146-9-20 and 1146-9-17. All right, I've got a motion. Can I get a second?

Second. We have a motion and a second. Can we get a vote? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All those opposed? No. No. All right. Can we get a roll? Yes, sir. Mr. Cosy, yes. Mr. Cook, yes. Mr. Hulcom, no. Mr. Oorio, no. Miss Cubny, yes. And Mr. Con? Yes. So the motion to deny passes. Correct. 42.

All right. [Music] Um the the next item on our agenda is uh it's a portion of 151 Clemson Road which is uh taxp number 25705-07-27 and of course it's a portion thereof and this is a request for a recommendation to reszone the property from mixed use district MU2 uh to mix use district MU2 outdoor advertising sign overlay district OVAS and and this is in order to allow an outdoor advertising billboard sign. Um you know this is a 4,000 ft uh chunk of the uh parcel. Um actually let's see if I can grab that real quick. It's no problem. And just to show you where it is. uh in relationship to the property. Um that I drew a kind of a rectangle there based off the legal description. And um in any the applicant has provided some images of the proposed billboard. Um and likewise in this case I I do want to mention a few things. the um um the the UDO basically declares declared back in well our old zoning ordinance back in 2000 declared essentially um billboards to be non-conforming and and did a a cap and replace type of program. And so this is the mechanism uh to allow new billboards where basically if you're taking taking down billboards in other locations

if you are authorized to do this overlay you can put up uh a billboard subject to requirements within the UDO and so there are uh distancing spacing requirements etc etc. Um so um not to read the somewhat lengthy um staff recommendation. Basically one of the conditions in um you know for the placement of of a billboard at this location is that it must be 300 ft from a residential base zoning district. And so this property is not within 300 ft of a residential base zoning district. Uh however, it is within 300 feet of a residential base zoning district that is outside of the city. So um if it is reszoned, um they would certainly be able to to put a billboard there. However, when we were deciding whether or not to recommend approval, that was ultimately one of the things that we had considered. And um so it it is it is one of the things that we should be considering when when making recommendations on a map amendment and that it is the compatibility with existing uses in the surroundings. So so that is where we're basing our staff recommendation on it. But uh I believe the applicant is present and and can answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. excited to come speak to the application. Good afternoon, evening, uh, planning commission and Andrew and Linda. Um, my name is Mason Sullivan. I work with Lamar Advertising. Uh, 1221 Atlas Road is our business address. I reside in Lexon County myself at 2011 Mistios Court. to give a little context and color that uh I think would be beneficial is as Mr. Living good mentioned we have to remove structures in order to replace a fraction of what is replaced uh as a new structure. So for reference in the application I I would assume we're a little bit different than some of these other matters that come before you given you're not reviewing the site plan or maybe some of those things before you look at a zoning matter. Um, since we do the zoning map amendment, our full application's already been filed. So, what we're looking to build there is no dram not dramatically different than what's immediately down the road, which is a 10 1/2 ft by 36 ft uh sign display. And it's uh down the road on Clemson Road going towards 77. There's a gas station. That one has one digital display on one side and static on the other. This application is for a static display on both sides. So, we're not looking to uh convert that structure to digital display. Um we're removing or have removed already two structures you may be familiar with. One uh more so than other. Um at the corner of Blossom Street and um Hugi, there's a corner um that is near the Cotton Press and there was a big 14 ftx 48 billboard structure

that was there. Obviously, there's a lot of activity in that area. The Blossom Street Bridge project required that we remove that sign and eventually the other small sign that's behind it to relocate it for a future project, even though that project has been uh delayed of sorts by DOT to replace the bridge. So, that's one structure that we removed in the replacement square footage in addition to another location on Garners Fairy Road slated for a I want to say it's some sort of medical MUSC urgent care type deal or another doctor's care some some flag uh urgent care. So, both of those structures were one was wood, one was steel I beams, neither were built to code. This would be up to the current code and also a relocation uh with in conjunction with the DOT. I bring your attention to the fact that Clemson Road is a DOT thorough affair that allows us to um on the state side that's a permissible route with a DOT permit governed by state laws which not all majority of streets are not but primarily interstates and highways. This is somewhat non-controversial on this artery given that we have two other structures I'd say compared to um a route that would be more intensively developed. And as you can see on the map, you've got unincorporated area on one side with residential development and on the opposite side, no major uh changes other than just two H hallogen bulbs that would light it up. It's going to be 35 ft to the top, which is the standard that's in the code. So, it's not something way up high that people are going to see dramatically towering over their backyard. And as you can see, there's pretty prevalent commercial uses. And uh not to go into too much detail, but I know that there are several immediate businesses that are annexed in the city of Columbia that have already contacted us asking for visibility uh for their business as a result of development being located behind like one section behind Clemson

Road. So, the demand for that growing corridor of commercial business is high. And um again, it's a it's a small sacrifice for our company to take down more than what we're replacing, but we appreciate the opportunity to be able to do that in a responsible manner within the city so we don't revert back to decades before of uh too much intense development of billboards. Any any questions? Any commission members have any questions for the applicant? I have a question. It's maybe for staff. Um so you're not going to go digital. It's going to be static, meaning no LEDs shining toward this neighborhood. Is that true or correct?

That's correct, Mr. Hulcom. And the reason for that is very specific for us. Um, we have digital displays bookending this. So, obviously for us, static displays are lucrative to some clients while digital displays are lucrative to other clients. So, if we were to have all digital or all static within a corridor, this project made sense to have a static display on both sides. So, that's what we requested and it's written into the package that I don't even know to just to be really honest with you, I don't even know what the process would look like as Andrew and Miss Statler and I have been navigating this. Um, I don't even know if we could convert that to digital display. Um, because it's going to be in a billboard overlay district and I don't know how that would even be governed. There's only one billboard right now that's in an overlay district. The rest are all just non-conforming billboards throughout the city as a result of the ordinance and the way it's written. So there's technically not such a thing as a conforming billboard. We can convert a non-conforming billboard to digital, but it would need to meet certain criteria which is found in a separate section of the ordinance.

Okay. So

um it it can't be enforced that this would not be converted to digital later. Correct. I mean, this is we're reszoning this for billboards. Or is there something in the city ordinance that says it cannot be digital ever? I I was in the process of double checking, but but my understanding is that the the requirements for conversion to digital, you know, has to do with that distancing again from that base residential zoning district. And so in this case, um, it it would not be within 300 ft of a residential base zoning district.

Yeah. And and you know, the Chimney Ridge is an old subdivision that was built on Clemson Road when Clemson Road was nothing but a two-lane rural highway. And uh, you can see it now. There's no buffer. These people's backyard fences are directly on the rightway line of Clemson Road. So, I think we have to be sensitive, very sensitive to their needs and I um I think that's a really important feature there. And if it could be digital someday, that makes it even worse in my opinion. So, um I'm just very concerned about the residential area directly across the street.

So, I have a question for staff. is the only nonconformity the distance from that neighborhood. It it would it would conform to our requirements. So that is part of our recommendation on the on the map amendment request. Um, but if we if this was within this overlay or if it was an existing non-conforming sign and we were presented with an application, we we would permit it. Okay.

Yeah. I've got two questions. If that an unincorporated um residential uh area were part of the city right now, um this wouldn't be allowed. Correct. like the overlay would, right? Well, technically the overlay would be allowed, but a billboard would not be. So, it would be a an overlay without a without a purpose. Sorry. As a as a followup is if we um approve it today and in the future that gets annexed,

would the sign be able to stay or would it just would it have to be like removed? No. um it it would be allowed to stay as a as in that case it would be non-conforming to those requirements. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. So basically it it would be within an allowed overlay but but because those Yeah. those ground conditions changed but it would be allowed to continue because it was um placed there before because it would be lawfully established. That's correct. Yeah. Got it. Yeah. I mean I think it's semantics you know just because it's it's within 300 Yeah. 300 ft. It's just that that residential neighborhood is not part of the city. But for me to make a Sorry. Oh, sorry. I was going to say Mason and I love these semantics. Yeah.

Is it is it possible that I could uh draw your attention to another location within the city that may abate the concerns of Mr. Hulcom and Mr. Aorio. Um on at at on Elmwood at Wayne Street, there's a very similar structure. The only difference is the location of where the column pipes oriented to the sign face. That location is um was eligible for conversion to digital copy. And if you notice, if you stand at certain locations along the street, there are uh LED conversion devices uh or LED um diverter devices. So each one of those screens has a bulb, a very tiny tiny bulb, right? Uh thousands of tiny tiny bulbs. there's essentially a blockade that will divert that light from going on those condominiums. Lamar elected to do that even though we weren't required to and you can't even see it if you stand at a certain orientation. So, for example, in this matter, um we could have a manufacturer, let's just say 20 years from now, Lamar decided that that we wanted to approach the city to request to convert that, even though I'm fairly certain that that some of those houses may be annexed at that point and we wouldn't be allowed to. Um, if we were to do that, which is not in our business interest to convert it for the foreseeable future given the other locations would diminish their returns, we could put diversion devices on those. And the technology significantly improved in the last 20 years to be able to not have a light obstruction to residences. It's pretty incredible among our three manufacturers. It's more of a conversation for another time, but we have an ability to make sure that there's no um disturbance to a residential neighbor and I'm not trying to like muddy the waters, but we're very responsible with how we're we've got a very short rope given the history with the city from decades before I arrived at Lamar. We're very conscientious of making sure that we do things the right way within the community.

Yeah. Question for staff. Um, signs were posted there before the reading, right? Like the DDC does like there'd be a sign being like this is going to be in the planning commission. Yes. Okay. Any further questions or discussion? All right. Uh, we get a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve ZMA 20250015 portion of 151 Clemson Road, TMS number 25705- 07-27. Uh request to u reszone the property from mixed use district MU2 to mixeduse district. MU2 outdoor advertising sign overlay district to allow an outdoor advertising billboard sign. Thank you. We have a motion and can I get a second? Second. A motion and a second. Can we get a vote? All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? No. No. Can we do a roll, please? Mr. Cosy? Yes. Mr. Cook? Yes. Mr. Mr. Hulcom, no. Mr. Osorio, no. Miss Cubny, yes. And Mr. Con? Yes. Motion passes 42. Thank you. All right. Do we have any other business? All right. Thank you everyone. Uh, can we get a motion to adjurnn? Chair, I motion that we adjourn. Motion and a second. All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. I.

I. Nobody's opposed. Thanks. [Applause] [Music] [Applause]