Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you, everyone. We'll go ahead and get tonight's Planning Commission for July meeting underway. We have some special conditions going on, so we appreciate just a little bit of patience as we go through a few procedural items here with the Planning Commission. Ms. Sandrick, could you please follow the roll, please?

Here.

Here. Here.

Here.

Here.

Thank you. So we do have a little bit of an unusual situation that I haven't seen before, but in discussing it with our legal counsel, Jack Hubble here, and looking at our bylaws, our chair and vice chair are absent today. And technically, the secretary is the city administrator, I mean, the zoning administrator, who reviews flats on your behalf, signs on your behalf, but he's not a voting member of this board. Given that situation, we do need to have a chairman run the meeting. And so we thought it would be the most appropriate was to have the board nominate a chairperson for this particular meeting tonight. So we would open the floor up to any nominations for chairperson.

I'll make a motion to nominate J.D. Shannon as chairman for this meeting.

Second.

Is there anybody else on here? I don't think so. Okay. Could you call roll, Ms. Sanders?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right. So... Mr. Shannon will now be the chair, and we'll turn it over to you as soon as you get situated there a little bit. Thank you, everybody, for your patience.

We'd like to welcome everyone here tonight. Thank you for coming in and sitting in with the session with us. Just what we'll end up doing is going through each section, and as we need or desire speakers to come up and address the committee, when you come up, please approach the podium, give your name and address on the topic you're speaking about. If you're finished and your topic has been discussed and you'd like to leave, please feel free to do so. Just exit quietly so we can continue business. If you'd like to stay, you're more than welcome to stay and watch the rest of the session. Acknowledgements and official communication. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You're fine. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So the communication of a city council, you did have one item at the June city council meeting, and that was the second consideration of coordinates 4590, which was a FUD master plan review by city council for the honey farms commercial portion being lot 1B. That did pass on second and final consideration. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Take it everyone's had an opportunity to review the minutes from our prior meeting. Is there any discussion on those minutes?

I'll make a motion to approve.

We have a motion to approve by Commissioner McBroom.

Second.

Second by Ms. Williams. Any discussion? Ms. Andrew, will you call the roll, please?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Minutes are approved, motion carried. Review of the bonds and credit. Now, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All letters of credit are in order or in the process of being up.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have our consent items. All right, I'll just read through those. First request from Regina Owens for final flat approval with surety in the amount of $570,000 for Hillcrest Village, Phase 3, off of Sharpstone Drive, being a portion of Tax Map 113, Partial 80.50. Second is a request from Alan O'Leary for revision of approval on final flat with surveying the surety in the amount of $515,000 for lots three and four on Heartland Drive and McClure Farms phase 1B being tax map 5-1B group parcels 32 and 33. And the request from Alan O'Leary for final flat approval with surety in the amount of $55,000 for Woodward Estates phase 1B off Rutherford Lane being tax map 101 parcel 36.06.

Any of those need to be removed?

Any discussion? Can I get a motion?

I take a motion to approve. Second.

Motion to approve by Mr. McBroom, second by Dr. Martin. Any discussion? Ms. Sandra?

Aye. Aye.

Motion carries, thank you. First item up tonight is a request from Jason Moorlach, final PUD, master plan approval on Westfield Park Group Living Facility being portioned, portion of PAX map 112, parcel 3.07 off Rutherford Lane. The applicant has requested deferral. Any discussion on this topic? Any motion?

Second.

Move to defer by Ms. Martin, second by Ms. Williams. Any discussion? Ms. Sandra? Aye.

Aye.

Motion carried. Second is request from M2 Group for preliminary plot approval on Westfield Park Commercial Subdivision, Tax Map 112, Parcel 3.07 off Rutherford Lane. This applicant has also requested a deferral. Any discussion on that? Can I get a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve. Second.

Got a motion for Mr. McBroom, second for Ms. Williams. Do approve or defer?

I'm sorry, defer.

Motion to defer. Motion to defer by Mr. McBroom.

Second.

Second by Ms. Williams. Any discussion? Ms. Sandra?

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries for deferral. Third item, request from M2 Group for final flat approval of Westfield Park Commercial Subdivision, TACMAP 112, parcel 3.07 off Rutherford Lane. That applicant is also requesting a deferral. Any discussion on that? May I get a motion for deferral?

I'll make a motion to approve their deferral.

Second.

Motion deferred by Mr. McBroom, seconded by Ms. Martin. Any discussion? Ms. Sandra?

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries. Item 4, request from Gamble Collaborative Design Group for final flood master plan on Water's Edge at Taylor's Landing located at Act Map 90, Parcel 7.12 off River Road of Taylor Landing. This applicant has requested a deferral. Any discussion on that? Negative motion.

Motion to defer the next meeting. Second.

Motion to defer by Ms. Martin, seconded by Ms. Williams. Any discussion? Ms. Sandra?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries. Item five is a request from Brian Ross for the AutoZone final PUD master plan approval at lot 8A in the Beechcroft Plaza PUD being packed map 42, parcel 14.05 off Nashville Highway and Casey Lane.

Yes, sir. Go ahead, Mark.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner. As you stated, this is a request, the applicant's request for approval of final PUD. master plan uh this construction of the 6894 square foot retail building associated with site improvements on lot 8a preliminary master plan and site development plan including the requested deviations that was presented at the preliminary um hood that was reviewed by this commission um received a favorable recommendation a recommendation from the planning commission was subsequently approved by the city council on final reading april 9th of this year The proposed final PUD master plan is consistent with the previously approved preliminary PUD master plan and incorporates the approved divisions, deviations, and reflects the proposed development of the site. The only change that I'd like the Commission to note is on page five of my staff report, and I'll go over that with you. It was a retaining wall at the northern portion of the property. And the configuration of that retaining wall has changed. There's not much height differentiation. But the configuration, as you can see in the illustrations there, it still does meet the requirements for retaining wall standards. It does not affect the deviations or the HUD. And as I stated before, outside of that that was the only change and um it does conform um to the preliminary but it was approved all right entertaining questions that mission may have thank you i think we have one person sign up to speak mr scotty burnick

Members of the Commission, Scotty Burnick with Kate Dawson, applicant just here for Q&A.

Appreciate your support.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any discussion on this matter?

I'll make a motion to approve.

I've got a motion to approve by Mr. McBroom.

Second.

Second by Ms. Martin. Any discussion? Ms. Sandra?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries. Approved. Next topic for discussion is item six, request from Michael Chemise for rezoning approval. What is it? Chamsey, I apologize. That's for rezoning approval of 6218 Casey Lane being packed map 101, parcel 39 from CD2 rural character district to CD3L neighborhood large lot character. And we'll take the staff report, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This item is the request rezone of approximately 30.67 acres located at 6218 Casey Lane from CD2 to CD3L. The applicant has submitted a concept plan showing 44 single resident lot, and the property is designated as suburban neighborhood under the Connect Columbia Future Plan use request for CD3L is consistent with that designation. Commissioners may recall that this property has been considered previously under several rezoning requests, all of which have been denied. There has been an updated letter from Columbia Power showing that water is available. Sewer and stormwater and other infrastructure would be evaluated if the rezoning is successful. It's important to note that this request is only to amend the zoning map. Approval would not authorize development as shown on the concept plan, and any future subdivision would be subject to applicable zoning and subdivision requirements. Thank you.

We've got several individuals signed up to speak on this matter. Ms. Susan Schuff first. Ms. Schuff, just please give your name and address.

Susan Schuff. I'll be focusing opposition. This portion of Casey Lane was established years ago to provide an entrance farm as such very narrow two-lane road with if a vehicle comes off the road nowhere else go with it if you do 18 case plane is between a road track and a very dangerous due to these road conditions there are very frequent number of traffic acts on case compared to we did a little research another parallel electric road in the same area significantly higher because the road conditions on this road these accidents have involved digital owned vehicles because no one is immune to Recently, I was told of a garbage truck that was totaled back in 2008 on this road. So there again, nobody is coming off the road. Even the Connect Columbia plan identifies this specific area south of Esquire for safe operation. In closing, previous request for a free zone has been denied by the city. I've lived in Columbia for six plus years, with this section of Paisley Lane always being maintained. Nothing has changed in this construction, and no upgrades have been made. As such, I respectfully ask for your consideration once again by this request. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Schuff. Mr. Darrell Schuff has signed up. Thank you, Mr. Schuff. You will give your name and address, and you'll have about three minutes.

Daryl Schuff, 6219 Casey Lane, directly across the street, adjacent property from 6218 Casey Lane. I am strongly opposed to the rezoning of 6218 Casey Lane from CD2, rural character, sparsely settled, or low density, to CD3L, neighborhood character, medium density. It is noted that although a preliminary drawing of 44 homes has been submitted to the city, it is my understanding this vote or zone change would be changing the zone that would allow up to 60 homes. I will be focusing mainly on traffic issues. Based on the traffic study conducted previously on 6218 Casey Lane, the daily traffic identified on this road at a time of study was 1,046 trips. In addition to this traffic, a CD3L Potential project capacity of approximately 60 homes would create 624 additional daily traffic trips on Casey Lane. Casey Lane would absorb all of this traffic due to the fact that a railroad track runs across Casey Lane on the side and the rear of the subject property. Another point of interest is that Casey Lane is identified as a collector road between Crockwood Avenue and Hampshire Pike. As such, due to housing approved to be built on both Crockwood Avenue, Hampshire Pike, and Rutherford Lane, the traffic cutting through Casey Lane will be increasing significantly. The above would be collectively a very large significant increase to traffic flow on Casey Lane. Casey Lane was not designed to handle this type of traffic flow. Significant increase in traffic has a strong correlation with higher frequency of traffic accidents. In addition, a significant increase in traffic flow could hinder emergency officials from getting into the area to provide resources and assistance. This could also hinder residents from leaving the area in emergency situations. Please say no to the request to change the zone of 6218 Casey Lane from CD2 to CD3L. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Cuff.

We have Ms. Paulette Livingood. Livingood, thank you, ma'am.

Call me Ms. Livingood. I'm Paulette Livingood. I live at 62. 27 Casey Lane I live in the face of that curb and I'm just maybe four houses up from this property and my very nice neighbors are much more articulate than I am they can they provided all the information that I have but I would just, I'm just here to sincerely ask, please vote against this. This is a terrible place for a subdivision. In another area, it might be wonderful. But when you look at that, that one entrance, one exit, there are no back entrances, no back exits. There's no other way in or out. There's a railroad track that goes right down beside it. And I just keep wondering, it was brought up before. What if there's a train derailment? What if gases are escaping and people are needing to evacuate? That's going to be a real problem. What if there's a fire and first responders need to get in there? That's going to be a chaotic mess. And another thing i do want to thank whoever managed to get casey lane on our side of the railroad track it has been resurfaced and i just want to say thank you to whoever did that if any of you had a hand in it it is much appreciated but it doesn't change the fact that we still have the curve it still rains on casey lane people still come around the curve too fast Water still dumps out everywhere when it rains hard. And there are just so many problems. Please vote against this if you would. This is getting old coming down here all the time by this map. And we just, we appreciate your vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Leib. Next signed up is Mr. Sam Goodman.

My name's Sam Goodman. I live on 6220 Casey Lane.

Lived there most of my life and raised on Casey Lane all my life.

This proposal on this group of houses and stuff being here looks like a terrible way to do this. I hadn't got a lot of statistics on all this, but I've been there all my life and I can tell you what I know about it. I've been hit twice on that curve on Casey Lane. My dad's been pushed off in the ditch over it twice. That's a terrible place to try to make a curve, and these guys, the more traffic you put on there, the worse it's going to get. These guys here also, like you were talking about the railroad track, we've lost cows on it. It'd be bad to lose a bunch of kids on it. Very easy done. The worst thing that I've seen on the, I used to work that property quite a bit, and grandfather and him owned that property at one time. And where he's in the middle there, it's two sinkholes there you can put a car off in. Next year, he'll be gone. There's a spring that comes in off a park up there. It runs in my pond back there in the back. It runs over there in the top of that thing that makes those sinkholes back off in the bottom of it there. And there's a well down there. When Mr. Casey sold that to Mr. Langer, It was two houses, two house places. One of them was already there, and it was steady and solid, and one he built steady and solid. But there's a hand-dug well there that's 20 feet deep that he's full of water. It goes right to the bottom down there. When it goes off to that bottom, that's where the sinkholes go, and then it goes off in behind the state garage. I sure would hate to see these people build houses in such a area and live there, and this has come about to be a bad situation. I do appreciate it, and I see if y'all could vote no on this situation. I do appreciate it. I know a lot of other people would, too. We thank you. Thank you, Mr. Goodman.

Next is Ms. Christy Goodman.

Hi, my name is Christy Goodman. I'm a 6220. of all i'd like to thank all of you guys again for coming out and face and listening to our specifications behind i'm a data person so i want to kind of start so the concept plan contains 44 units at approximately 17.3 acres designed as home plant so that produces an average residential lot size of about 0.38 so please keep that number in your mind while i go over the next property across the street average 1.25 which means they are 69 percent smaller compared to property across the street properties beside average nine acres which makes them 96 percent smaller than the proposed properties across the street and beside average 2.8 units per acre for the whole adjoining property which is 86 percent smaller than what's being proposed Another way to put this is surrounding 10 properties average seven times larger than the proposed lot. The comparison is substantial. Based upon those figures, there's a strong quantitative basis to argue that the proposed lot pattern is maturely different than the immediate adjoining and facing development pattern. And therefore, the proposed development is not compatible with the established lot pattern immediately surrounding the property. This is important because compatibility should be evaluated against actual established development patterns surrounding the site, not merely where a proposal can technically fit within a zoning pattern. that reason i respectfully ask for the planning commission to closely examine whether development averages approximately 0.03 acres per residential lot is generally compatible with an immediate surrounding tavern that averages 2.8 and 80. we not much has changed since a few months ago so earlier this year an 81 proposed plan was rejected since the rejection the fundamental conditions surrounding the site have not really changed As people have stated, the roads have not changed. The surrounding infrastructure has not been upgraded. Traffic has not decreased. The existing neighborhood properties have not become smaller. The character of the surrounding area has not changed. The constraint that exceeds when the 81 homes were rejected still exists today. So the central question is simple. What has materially changed since the city rejected it in 81? If approximately 30 homes are already available under the existing zoning, then I specifically ask, what public need, change condition, infrastructure improvement, or compatibility finding justifies this committee increasing development intensity beyond current zoning already allowed? Reducing an incompatible proposal does not automatically make the revised closing for these reasons I request and respectfully ask for you guys to reject this zoning what thank you mr. Shamsie like to address Thank You chairman Thank You commission

So when I was here last time under the CD pre-zoning request, it was brought up to consider CD 3L. And in our design, we did consider that and provided a 50-foot buffer along Casey Lane to soften the impact or the adjacent properties. And now the roadway has become, looks like the main issue. And so I would like to request a deferral, get time to work with the city engineer on the roadway issue and the other few issues that they brought up. I can't do nothing about the railroad, but I can look at the infrastructure and the roadway system there and see what we can do to satisfy some of the concerns and give me more time to evaluate it.

Thank you, Mr. Chambers. You're asking for a deferral.

Yes, sir.

Any discussion among the commission? Entertain a motion for his request for a deferral.

Move for deferral to the next scheduled meeting.

Got a motion from Ms. Martin, Dr. Martin, for a deferral. I'll second it. Any discussion? Ms. Sanders?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion for deferral carries. Okay, item number seven is request from Lynn Ely for approval of the Heritage Green Phase 2C, Preliminary Flat Site Development, located at Tax Map 74, Partial 37, off Baker Road.

Thank you Mr. Shannon. This request is simply defined to the corner section of the approved development plan as depicted here on your screen. This development plan is currently under construction and has been approved under our current zoning ordinance within a CD3 character district. the applicant is proposing to modify his preliminary plat which in turn modifies the site development plan regarding lot configuration The approved preliminary plot, as you can see here on the left, indicates lots that are located along Baker Road and are street fronting. And the applicant is proposing a revision of eight lots to include lots that in front in open space connected by a pedestrian path. With this proposed revision, it does amend the total lot count of the development. The previous approval was for 156 lots and with this approval there will be a total of 158 lots. I would like to note it's still within the density allowance of the development at four units per acre and also is within the allowance of permitting front loaded lots on a pedestrian path of up to 20%. And so simply put, what this proposes is front-loaded lots to lots that will load onto an alleyway at the rear, and the alleyway will connect to the developer. I'd be happy to entertain any questions.

I don't see anyone to sign up to speak for that. Any discussion on this?

mr brass tell me about what am i reading here fire uh drc comments lot 30 31 and 156 for over the 150 feet full for the host good question during the review the fire marshal had concern regarding host pool from lots from my understanding the fire marshal has a requirement that they We'll fight the fire from a street section. And so if there is an issue of fire, they would fight it from the street. And each proposed lot would need to be at least 150 feet from the street in order to reach the pool, the host pool. And so the initial request had lots that were in the middle. You can see where lot 156, 157. 156 to 158, there's an open space seven right there. Earlier proposals showed lots that were more in the middle of that open space. And so what the applicant did to respond to the fire marshal's comments is he eliminated those lots and brought them closer in to North Ridge Road. So now there is adequate hose pool from the road.

Thank you, Fisher. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.

I'll move to approve.

Got a motion to approve by Ms. Williams. Second. Second by Mr. McBroom. Any further discussion?

comment dr martin based off the the recent middle of the flat the uh the 150 foot post pool has been corrected so that's correct and we don't have correct certainly um it's always best advice whatever approval is made with technical comments if any miss williams would you be amenable to adding in your motion with something to the

Yes.

Second.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the roll. Ms. Andrew? Aye.

Aye.

Motion carried. That brings us to item 8, request from Frunk Engineering for revision approval of the landing at Greensmill Road, final PUD master plan located off Greensmill Road, TACMAT 51, parcel 5...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This development is a request to revise the final plan unit development of the master plan for Green's Mill. This development is vested under Zoning 3638. The proposed revisions are limited in scope. The request includes modification to development phasing, relocation of several residential lots, updated the addition of second centralized mill kiosk. The total number of approved residential lots remains unchanged. The revised plan reflects the correct 175-foot TVA easement that was previously shown incorrectly on the approved master plan. Staff has reviewed the request and determined that the proposed revisions do not substantially alter the approved development or increase its intensity. The modifications remain consistent with the previously approved HUD and applicable ordinance requirements. I'm available. Thank you, Ms. Thompson.

Mr. Malon, did you desire to speak? Brad Malon? No?

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your time this evening.

Brad Malm. I actually live at 2729 Macklemore Road in Franklin. I'm speaking on behalf of Ron Freeman and Janine Linden, the trust that owns parcel 4, one of the adjacent properties to the proposed Phases looking at the final plan, the concern that I have, and both my and my uncle Ron have on this is that it looks as though it's encroaching on an easement that allows ingress and egress from the property off of blue stem. The only other access onto that property would be from double branch road, which goes through John McClain's property. Who owns that easement and does not allow access for anybody through there. So the only way to get onto this property would be through Bluestem, which is currently a construction road. I was there today and saw that they were tearing up the area surrounding this property, which, again, looking at this plan would make accessibility to this just not a possibility. So I would ask that you guys consider approving this plan until further research has been done in terms of how we can get on and off of our property off of Bluestem Road. I'm also concerned about the proximity of the properties in the home in relation to the property line that we have. So I just would ask that you guys would consider that before voting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Before you leave, could you repeat where this location was? I'm trying to find it. I'm having a hard time locating it.

Yeah. I can tell you, looking at the – hold on one second. Let me pull it up on the GIS. It's parcel ID 0674.00. It's 5.67 acres, and the name on the ownership is Ron Friedman and Jean M. Linden Trustees.

Stay with us, sir. We're trying to examine that, okay?

I'm sorry, the name of the trustee?

No, stay with us up there. We're trying to review that. Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Was that on the, you said coming off the double branch?

uh so the property is tucked away behind john mclean uh so he's plat six zero zero uh sorry excuse me parcel id zero six seven six dot zero zero from his property there's a gate off of double branch that allows it's an easement road that goes back to our property um the only other way to get onto this property would be from the construction road that will become blue stem And right now, McLean does not allow access for anybody through his easement. So our only way onto our property is through the construction road. And my understanding is our property is not allowed to be landlocked.

How do you get there now?

Through the construction road. Our plan for that property is to build a home, which obviously we need to be able to get on and off of.

Absolutely, Ms. Martin. Thank you, Doctor. Go ahead.

So I'm looking at the response to the technical information, and it says the TVA easement provides the clarification for the revision easement that were limited on the initial review. So does that have anything to do with what you guys are looking at?

I don't believe so, Ms. Martin. I think the TVA easement is separate from the rest of the easement.

Well, where is it?

Double branch right here. I mean, it doesn't go by state law. There is no land law. You have the right to go through any property. But now I've got to look back on the plans and compare it.

Is it is it large enough to allow for ingress and egress or does it encroach on the ability to travel that road?

Mr. Harper, you said it was 200 feet between? Yes.

Thank you.

Mr. Crunk? Thank you. Can you help us out here and help us identify this property and what we're looking for?

I can. I think part of it does show up on our plan, so I'll describe it here. Please.

What sheet?

So if you look at sheet C1.0, there's probably multiple versions of that sheet from our replies and technical comments.

Yeah, let me keep going. Sorry, I thought Austin was pulling up.

Okay, so if you're looking at sheet C1.0, and do you see the big lettering that says OS1513.09 acres? Yes. All right, now if you look up the page and you see a triangle that has the number two inside of it, Okay, I think that's the parcel because we identified their map parcel 67 4.00 name Freeman Ron. You can see that in the smaller gray text just to the up and to the right of that triangle too. I think that's the, based on what I heard, that's got to be the property. And so I guess the question was about getting a driveway access off of Bluestem Road in the future for them to build a home and I see, and yeah, it's a landlocked parcel, and I believe it always has been. It's never been a part of this development or anything like that. I guess... What I would ask is for you to go ahead and approve our matter here, which is completely unrelated to that, and then ask the gentleman to get with the developer of the property to see if he can negotiate a driveway access to make that parcel accessible. There is the complication, I guess, of that parcel being in the county, not in the city, right? I mean, there... but this is the first we've heard of this request, but I don't think it's out. I mean, I don't think it would be seen as unreasonable by the developer.

You know what the grade looks like.

That is correct.

Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, we do have quite a large slope coming off of the road. I can't, You mind zooming into that? Awesome. So Bluestem Road is high, and then there's a slope down to that property. But the way it's been designed, there would be no grading impacts on the property, and getting a driveway there seems feasible just from the looks of it. There would be some grading rework to be done, but it could be.

But I think I guess I would consider that a private driveway.

Right. And we're not showing private driveways on this plan at this stage in the process.

This is just a master.

That's right. And so obviously the construction planes would need to be revised to reflect the final master plan. Yes, and so we could possibly ensure that during the construction planes that the driveway be shown.

If it's worked out with the developer.

Sure, to the developers.

Yeah, I mean, the developer would have to grant some kind of access easement to that property.

That's right.

The subject to that, yeah, it could be shown on a construction plan or a final plan for that matter.

And we can agree that they can't deny access. It's just what type of access developer maybe amicably to you.

I guess my question would be to Glenn. I guess providing access is one thing, but I don't think the construction of the driveway would be on the property owner that's using the access. The developer of the site provided access to the site door, but technically they could provide the access, and it would be on the property owner to construct whatever driveway access.

I mean, it would be a private driveway. It looks like it would need access. We're indifferent if the developer builds it or the homeowner builds it, as long as it meets our regulations.

But I bring up that this is a master plan, so you will come back to see it at the final.

What you would see at the common area would be easement through some

Make sure everybody understands. This will come back to us. What if it comes back, the developer will not give him an easy time? What happens then?

It's an interesting scenario.

I'll tell you, I think that's an issue between him and the developer. He is entitled to an access property. maybe not by this plane one. I don't know, though. Obviously, the whole industry has been accessing that property, but he'd be entitled to an access from somebody, but that's something that he'd have to deal with him or file a lawsuit to support for. It's really between parties.

Yeah, unless there's something already done, already a deed somewhere that we haven't found.

Yeah, which we're not aware of. Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cullen. Mr. Cullen, you had another question?

How, explain to me how you, how have you been getting,

so historically um this property has been in the in my family for over 30 years mclean has had typically no problem letting us get on to our property from double branch through the easement recently because of development and others getting access onto his property he's gated it off and has now stated that because he owns the easement nobody is allowed to get through it so we can't get through he's got it chained and locked That's one thing. The other part of that is we have had access to it from the backside through the construction road. We've never had an issue getting to it from that section.

Oh, so when they put the construction road in, then you were able to access your piece of property?

There's always been a way back there, even if it's rough off-roading. We've always been able to get back there.

But it wasn't nothing that – so it sounds like the problem you've got is the plan that they did. Did you have an easement on his property to get to yours?

So the easement situation, that road has been there for ages before I was even in the picture. I'm not sure how that was all worked out with how that was established or who put that in. So I don't have any insight on that. I've called, checked in with the registrar's office. There's a gentleman by the name of John I'm supposed to be from about being able to get information on that easement road. My point is that we were still able to access the road through the back. which was where bluestem is going in um what i'm what i'm concerned is is if they follow through with this plan and put this road in and there's not proper ingress egress assessed for that i no longer have access to the back side of that property if there's curbs put in if there's retaining walls put in if there's any kind of um you know infrastructure that's built out that prohibits me to get onto the property from bluestem that's what i'm So I know that there's been a conversation about putting in a driveway off of that area, which is fine, but I don't see anything on the plan that shows that that's not going to be a curb or a finished sidewalk or anything to that nature that would then prohibit me from getting onto the property, which is a big concern. I understand your pain.

I truly do. I'm trying to figure out how to make it work. It sounds like you just happened to be using this area to get back there. I'm not wanting to argue, but when they put Blue Stem in, it helped you out. Is that correct?

It does if there's an actual way onto my property.

But you didn't have a true road. You did not have even a construction road until they put it in. You were just going through fields.

Yeah, it was basically a trail back there.

A trail. Yeah. Okay. I understand. I'm just trying to figure out how to make it work for everybody. Yeah.

Easement, you mentioned easement. That's across the plain. When you're saying easement, you're referring to the plain.

I'm talking about, yeah, off of Double Branch Road between what is Double Branch Partners and McLean. Those two properties, right in between them, there is a road. There's an easement road that runs back to my property. That now has a gate on it and is locked by McLean. So there's no access through it. Now, that might be something he's not legally allowed to do. I don't know. But that's a separate issue. My concern is, do I have ingress egress off the backside of my property as well? Right. Which is where where I'm really concerned about. um and again i have no problem if there if the development is is making a way for me to get down off my property we you know either through us punching in a driveway on our own um but as long as there's no retaining walls like i mentioned any infrastructure herbs sidewalks things like that that would then prohibit me from getting onto the property back there that's what i'm concerned thank you but this will come back yeah

what they put on the okay how would I go about getting that information so I can make the appropriate I would engineer with me thank you that's my opinion I'm not a Ernie or anything you're already picking on these and kind of just a

Maybe for clarity, because we do run into these issues from time to time. In my experience, this would be something that would be a civil matter between the two parties that staff wouldn't necessarily be able to mediate or anything of that nature, if that's the case.

Yeah, I just want to make sure the plan that's being approved or being asked to be approved tonight does not encroach properly. And so I would ask you guys to make sure that before approving anything, there is nothing that's going to, in effect, prohibit me from getting access or encroaching on the property. So if there's a way to get peace of mind and assurance on that based on finalized plans and understanding of what the road looks like and what the potential driveway looks like, I don't see finished side. I don't know what the sidewalks, I don't know what the road construction is supposed to look like. And so I don't know if any of y'all have an understanding of what that's going to look like, the finish road. Are there going to be sidewalks, parkways, things like that? And if that's the plan, it would be good to know that before approving this.

Yeah, all of our streets have sidewalk curb. We do curb and gutter. So there'll be a curbing curb with sidewalk. Driveways come off of them all the time, though. I mean, you just put in a driveway apron. There again, I The encroachment is one thing, but forcing the access from one to the other is getting a little bit far for us.

Sure.

Unless you have that. So you're kind of using somebody else's property to get to your property now without an ease. Because the person that you were using stopped using that. So it's almost like Mr. Hubbell said earlier, it's almost between you and whoever you're wanting to try to get access through, you're going to have to work it through them to try to get access.

there is definitely unfortunately it may resolve into a leak at but there may be a better option than trying to come to loose when they get done great because there will be a slope well I was there yes I have a recording of it and where my property entrance is on to the easement it's fine there's it's it's relatively flat though I can show you the video if you'd like it. I can send it to the State Council if you'd like to see it, but I do have video evidence of that. And then, again, the other concern would be the proximity of the proposed home in relation to the property line.

Might not be their finished grade. I'm just looking at the grading.

I'm missing something when you look.

I don't think it looks like there's going to be some some rising of that roadway but again I think the advice of Council over there is going to play more than anything, right? It's our job to try and decide what to approve and what not to approve. We want to take your input into it. We don't want to burden one of our citizens, but our job right here is to approve this for further discussion.

Then my only other recourse is to ask you guys to defer the decision on this until further, we've been able to make further investigation into how I can get on and off the property and whether there is in fact gonna be encroachment. Like you said, you're just looking at the grading plan. If there's any way that you guys can defer that decision until further information comes to light. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you.

Any further discussion?

so mr. chair my question is what we have in front of us this afternoon does not show problems with what mr. Malin Malin it does not on these plans no ma'am I don't believe it does show that we can see by the images that he will have

Immediately, I guess, for lack of a better term, landlocked property there. But as Mr. Hubbles pointed out there, we can't have that. But that's between him and the property developer to work out, whether it be from the old access easement, the person who allowed him there, or the new easement or access that would be granted by the new developer.

Chairman, we will see this.

Yes, we will.

They will have to bring in. They will bring this in. Final plat.

Final plat. Final plat.

Final plat. Final plat. Final plat.

Let me ask again now. This is the final hood that we're doing.

Yes, ma'am.

Not the final plan. Right, right.

So as you heard, sir, we're going to be taking a vote on this in a moment. No matter what happens, your top priority should be getting with Mr. Trunk and the developer and working that out. They bring that plan. Any further discussion by the commission?

Seeing none, I'll call for a vote or a motion.

I'm going to, Mr. Chair, I'm going to make a motion to approve the final good master revision.

Yes, ma'am. Got a motion to approve by Dr. Martin. Second. Got a second from Vice Mayor McBroom. Further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote. Ms. Sandra?

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carried. Brings us to item number nine. Request from West Engineering and Surveyors for revision of approval of Rutherford Lane Estates preliminary flat, preliminary and final flat of Rutherford Lane being packed map 101N, group C, parcel 77. Mr. Archibald, please continue.

Yes, sir.

The applicant requests approval of preliminary and final plat for revision of Open Space 7 on a previously approved preliminary and final plat for the Rutherford subdivision, which was approved by the commission September 14, 2022. The subdivision in and of itself consists of 124 single-family residential lots on approximately 65 acres. Phase, since the original preliminary plat approval, final plats for phase one and two were approved on April 10th, 24, and August 13th, 25, respectively. The original preliminary plat established special rights under the RS-10 zoning district standards of the previous zoning ordinance, ordinance 3638. Final plat that is being presented tonight, as well as the preliminary plat, shows the introduction of a utility structure that's being proposed to be placed on, as seen in the illustration there on the plat, being proposed to be placed in Open Space 7, which would be a revision to the preliminary and final plat for the subdivision. The plat does conform outside of this change. The plat still conforms to the preliminary plat as originally approved. There's no other additional changes. Density stayed the same. Open space was recalculated, but it did not decrease to the point where it was... outside of what the zoning ordinance allows. And the structure, the only things that staff would like to point out to the commission is that since it is under 3638, if the commission is considering approval, take these notes into consideration. The structure, if approved, shall comply as noted. on the preliminary and final plat with the standards for design or landscaping as required for the previous zoning ordinance in which the development is best. And if access to the structure is determined to be required, the access shall be either surfaced with concrete or asphalt as required. Once again, this is a revision to previously approved preliminary and final plans for an existing subdivision. And it's specific to Open Space 7. But outside of that change, it does still adhere to the standard in which it was approved. 3638, now I understand your question. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bartholomew. We have a few people signed up to speak on this matter. Mr. Garrett Young is first. Mr. Youngblood? Mr. Baskin? Mr. O'Leary, do you feel the need to speak? Please state your name and address.

Alan O'Leary, WES Engineers and Surveyors.

I had them sign up just in case there was any questions to be asked.

Respect. Thank you very much. Any discussion amongst the Commission? Yes, ma'am.

Okay, on the response. And number seven, where it talks about the open space as usable open space. And, and this, the fact that it doesn't require the utility, I heard what our staff person indicated. So um, Why are we doing it here? Was there somewhere else it could have been done?

Or why are we doing it here?

I guess the utility that was not allowed.

Why use both places versus just putting it somewhere else?

Is that the interest of that subdivision?

It's just

You know, this isn't just going to be to service this subdivision. It's my understanding that, you know, this whole area. So it's actually, it'll be a hut that has their electronics in it. There'll be a backup generator back behind it. So if electricity does go out, that generator will go back. You know, people will have internet if they have generators. I think it's just the proximity of being able to get out of here, you know, services subdivision, of course, but also service other areas.

And so I'm trying to visualize. So this is not going to cause any safety concerns, the location of it coming in and out, you know, traffic flow, none of that. This is just a decision to place this here. It's not going to cause anything as subsequent to the placement.

That's correct. It was, you know, Regent Holmes still owns all this. And Regent was willing. They actually had into an operating agreement to be able to do it. And then we kind of tracked down to, oh, it's got to go to the city. It's got to be a revised plan. It's got, you know, preliminary. And that's where United contracted us to help them get. So, you know, Regent was in agreement already.

No, ma'am. It's the usable portion. That's what kind of called it a little bit. So if this had been a location somewhere else or a... open space that wasn't defined as usable on their original plan, then it would have just not been even, probably even blinked that. But since it was a usable, it's vested plan, it's kind of locked in. And when you look in 3638, that's where the comment comes back for on the usable open space utility. So they had to remove it from that deductible, that .03 reflects them removing it. That's really what they're adjusting.

Okay, and I'm not you know, trying to get into tall weeds, but I know that there's just .03.

That's why they're showing that. Just because they're actually removing that from the usable area.

Theoretically, you know, if it was put up close to the road, what they're considering usable. There's proximity to being able

they still had plenty of useful space was first stopped so they still have access excess useful steel any further discussion

Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion.

Make a motion to approve.

I've got a motion to approve from Vice Mayor McBroom.

Staff would just like to note those conditions that were mentioned as well, specific to any motion made.

Mr. McBroom, do you mind amending?

I'll make a motion to approve subject to staff report.

A motion approved by Mr. McBroom, subject to technical statements and questions.

Based on the explanation, I'm going to second.

We've got a second from Dr. Martin. Any further discussion? Ms. Andrew, will you call the roll, please?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries. Brings us to item 10, a request from Tim Mehta. For architectural design approval of new construction in Bear Creek Plaza, located at 1530 Bear Creek Pike, being tax map 73, parcel 18.26.

Thank you, Mr. Shannon. The reason that you are seeing this request is you are serving in your capacity as the architectural design review team. This particular property is owned special district interstate. And so it's currently a vacant out parcel directly next to Cracker Barrel in front of the Candlewood Suites. And so the applicant is proposing to construct a 10,000 square foot retail center in that will consist of four general commercial tenant spaces. This proposal, as reviewed by staff, does meet all qualifications of design standards for special district interstate. It has the adequate amount of glazing at the front elevation. It does propose a drive-through. However, the drive-through would be located in the third layer. of the site plan and so this is the site plan that is associated with the design however the commission would be tasked with just voting on the design itself for architectural standards overall it does meet compliance for the district in which it's located in thank you thank you mr pratt discussion see that no one signed up how about the commission

I have a question. So this interstate commercial area, do they still have to have the base middle cap?

There is that requirement. However, they do not have to have the knee wall required. It's not required to have what we call a shop front facade. So the design standards are a lot more liberal in the special district interstate as opposed to other districts such as a CD4 or CD4C.

Okay.

Because I don't really see what we normally look for here.

That's right.

But that's allowed.

It's a lot more liberal compared to the other. Really what the ordinance is looking for is 20% glazing and also the requirement that there is material standards are met, which in this case it's a combination of brick and fiber cement boards.

So with the 20% glazing, does that mean you can see through, see into the space? Yes, ma'am.

It does have to be clear glass. And so the elevation at the very top of the screen would be the elevation that would be in front of Bear Creek. So that's what you would see. So that's what we would consider per code as the quote-unquote facade elevation. So those are where the glazing calculations are from. And then the other elevation, which is where the multiple tenant spaces are, that would be what we call a non-facade elevation because it doesn't in front of street section.

Okay.

From the north elevation, it's part of Bear Creek. Bear Creek. Yes, sir.

Any further discussion? I'll entertain a motion.

Move for approval of any second of the Senate plan.

Got a motion by Dr. Martin. Second. Second by Vice Mayor McCormick. Any further discussion? Seeing none, call the vote. Ms. Sandra? aye motion carries brings us to the end of our regular agenda any other business

I would like to note, though it's not on the agenda, we did conclude the East Columbia Small Area Plan. So that did go before council. And then on July the 28th, we are conducting a walk audit. So if anybody wishes to attend from Planning Commission, we will meet here at 9 a.m. And the walk audit will begin here at city hall with the briefing. And then we'll be walking down to the arts district. And the goal of the walk audit is we received a grant that Mr. Archibald had wrote and we were fortunate to receive it. And so we are getting some assistance from the state department of health and it's to analyze walkability. And so one of our goals is to better connect downtown with the arts district. And as you're aware, it's not a very, uh, inviting walk if you're going down South Garden Street. And so we're just trying to find strategies that could make it more welcoming. And then there is $2,500 in seed money that the state is allocating towards an implementation of that. So that's just something to be aware of if anybody would like to attend.

Thanks, Mr. Price. Tell me the date on that again.

July 28th, am I right? 23rd. Wow, thank you, Melissa. July 24th. It's a Thursday, July 23rd, 9 a.m., and it'll meet right here in Council Chambers. There is a link. I know Ms. Hannah with public information officers, she will post it on the city website. So there's a QR link. And there's also a biking portion of it too. So if you would rather bike, the state is bringing down 10 bikes to do a bike audit.

Any other business? Appreciate you doing the role before the chairman. It was a good test for future.

There it is. I knew I was in trouble sooner or later. No other public comment. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Got a motion to adjourn from Dr. Martin, a second from Vice Mayor McCroom. Any discussion? Ms. Sandra?

Aye. Aye.

Hi.