It's
4 o'clock. I'll call the Columbia Municipal Planning Commission meeting to order. We'll start with the roll call.
Here. It's beautiful.
Here.
Present. I have a quorum, present. I'd like to welcome everyone here tonight. Looks like a
small audience and fairly small agenda so maybe we'll all get home at a
decent time but thanks for coming. We'll start with the approval of, I'm sorry,
the acknowledgement of official communication from City Council on annexations
and zones. Now yes, Mr. Chairman, so you did have four ordinances at the February
13th meeting. These are all the ordinance retaining to your last round of
zoning text amendments. Those did pass first consideration. Would point out though that we will
be seeing that pushed out an extra month due to some notification, public notice notifications
that we need to adhere to. And so that may not come in fact until April or May.
And those are all
that. Thank you, Mr. Felner. Any questions? Staff on that. Next time it's going to be approval of
minutes of last month's meeting, there's a copy in the package for everyone to have reviewed
and if any amendments or anything need to be made, please do we state it's not our
interruption.
So moved, except as presented, motion, second, any other discussion, we'll call the vote
on the minutes.
Aye.
Mr. Sloan?
Aye.
Good to go.
Aye.
Minutes are approved.
Next time it's going to be the review of bonds and letters of credit.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All letters of credit are in order in the process of being updated.
Thank you, Mr. Harper.
I have one item on our consent tonight. I'll read it out loud and I always ask if there's any one
to be pulled out for discussion. We can do so and in this particular case, I do have a question
of staff on it so I guess it will be open for discussion. So item number one is going to be a request
from Alan O'Leary for final plat approval approval with the surety of the amount of 190,000 dollars
of Williamsport landing phase 3 consisting of 28 lights off Williamsport Pike at Oak Springs
Drive being a 12.66 acre portion of Tax Map 88, RSO 51.05.
I guess my, I guess starch, since it is just a consent item, just a quick question of staff.
In reading the DRC report and the response to the DRC comments, there was a report or statement
in there from CPWS stating that I think it's maybe just for an FYI but I just want to make
sure that we maybe note on the record that we've taken into consideration and at least
reviewed that, that the applicant is negotiating or trying to at least do some negotiations with
I'm sorry CPWS is trying to negotiate with the applicant pertaining to some easements needed for
the water expansion that the water department is trying to achieve going forward and I don't know
that's even an item that we can consider on any of our vote in this matter, but, you know,
I just wanted to at least bring that, you know, up and maybe get some direction from staff on that
too while I noted in the plan in the DRC reports. That's correct. Thank you for pulling that out.
It was noted in the technical report or the DRC comments. Climbing power and mortar systems
wishes to note the CPWS has submitted the property owner a good faith offer based on a
praised fair market value to acquire easements along the rear of the property for a water transmission
main. It's part of CPWS's long term water supply program. The easement will affect residential
lots 81 and 82. They also noted that they're currently in negotiations for the same. The, of course,
the preliminary flat came through a final flat came through. It was reviewed, went through technical,
So met the standards put in previously approved preliminary
plans. So all the standards have been adhered to by the applicant.
But that was a note that Columbia Power did wish to present in their comments.
I don't know exactly where they're at in the negotiations with the property on
at this point, but the final plat that's presented to not the planning commission
does meet in adhere to the standards currently. There's no easement that's been placed,
therefore no accountability was made for the easement. They're on the final platelets
presented to the planning commission. And all those discussions would have come forth
after this preliminary plat and all was even again, and, you know, approved, you know,
sometime back anyway. That's correct to my knowledge. That's correct, yes sir.
and so maybe for city attorney or whatever.
Just do we note that the comment is there,
but it's not a criteria item of which we could,
I think we could base any decision upon
since the question plaque forms to our ordinance.
Is that an accurate assumption?
Right, okay.
Then I will do we note that that is a comment there
and I hope the conversations continue.
That being said, I'll make the motion
to approve subjectivity technical comments.
Second.
I have a motion and a second by Mr. McBrune, further discussion.
Seeing none, we'll call the vote.
Aye.
Mr. Stone.
Aye.
Item passes.
Raise us to our discussion items tonight.
Item number one, I'll read it.
The request from Greg Gamble to Rezone Property attacks him at 90.
parcel 7.12 being a 5-acre tract at River Road and Taylor Bend from PUD planning to
development to a CD-5 Urban Center Character District with revocation of the
water's edge at Taylor Bend PUD. I've seen here that this applicant has requested
this be withdrawn. Yes sir, is it correct? They have officially withdrawn this. They have
indicated that they will be looking to resummit this at a later date and
in a different application type, but it is off of the document.
All right.
I do see that there was a speaker signed up with this item, particularly being withdrawn.
I don't know that there's any necessity to bring up discussion from public comment with
it being withdrawn from Plenty Public Vote.
So that being said, I think I'm going to move on to the next item, which is going to be item
Section 2, request from, that's not about right, what's the draw on which to do anything?
Yes, sir.
Item number 2 is going to be a request from Olivia DuPoi, DuPoi for preliminary put, master
plan approval with architectural design regarding construction of a 45,000 square foot commercial
building in the honey farm crossing PD subdivision, being a 7.49 acre portion of tax map 51, parcel
58 at Nashville Highway and Honey Farmway, and I see a note as well that the applicant is requesting
a deferral on this item.
Mr. Brown deferred, Mr. Brass, he's been working with them on this project.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Gates.
We typically do a biweekly check-in meeting with the Walmart team, particularly with the
architect and the site engineer, and with this project, there's been several renditions
that we have reviewed and staff does feel very comfortable with the overall site plan in terms of meeting our zoning ordinance.
Nevertheless, the primary reason for this deferral has to do with the architectural elevations.
There were some last minute changes that Walmart corporate had made in reducing some glazing. However, they did add brick along the rear elevation.
And in discussing with the architect this morning about the project, she had stated that they are confident that they will be at the April meeting.
However, they did want the corporate team to be here to be able to answer any additional
questions.
So that is a primary reason for the deferral, is the architecture.
Let's have a question on, I think I can ask a question as long as it's pertaining to
the deferral.
That's right.
All right.
I guess this is going to be a draw.
So I don't even know.
Good afternoon.
This is part of public comment.
I guess open discussion because I have spoken with the Walmart corporate folks a couple
times. And I just wanted, is there purpose of being here next month to explain what
their variances are going to be or their requests for variances?
It is. The deviation requests are really primarily the glazing on the building and they are
aware it is a planning development. And so they just want to be able to answer any questions
is there anything that may come up?
In addition to that, there was a proposal for signage
with a monument sign and also a proposal
for a freestanding sign.
A staff did discuss with the applicant
that a monument sign is what we would be looking for
in similar precedent to pasture probals.
And in the latest and greatest rendition,
they did show a monument sign there.
I think that a lot of it started with us
to let them know that they needed to have somebody here
that. Yeah, initially the architect was not able to attend. There was some adverse weather
where they were coming from. And so we did feel that there was any questions that were going
to be asked. You know, there was no one here to represent them for that. All right. Well,
I actually have another question on that. But before I go to that, let me get back to, okay,
so this one is requesting a deferral that it's the previous one that was totally withdrawn.
Let me get back to the glazing.
So, isn't there an opportunity for staff now to have a little bit more discretion in
their ability to waive certain, particularly glazing requirements that, I mean, I remember
we had this conversation relative to the dollar general project that, you know, thought that
the glazing requirements were very...
Ornish.
Yes.
And it seems like we made a couple of dates, maybe one that reduced the glazing, but two that provided staff a little more discretion so that we didn't have to
necessarily delay projects like this, so because now they're having to wait another 30 days before they even get approval, which means they're 30 days down from
you know, their next step, which means they're 30 days away from breaking ground, which means we're 30 days away. I mean, it's just, I wish there was a more expedited way to
I think the challenge is, Mayor Mulder, you may recall, this was a site that the property
owner did ask to be rezoned to a straight zone.
The commission and council, maybe the council agreed to keep it city force, to keep it a PUD. And so because they are tied up in that PUD zoning staff does not have any legal way to consider administrative deviations. And so really it's a PUD. So the PUD is the reason that this is having to come back. So is that an example of this had not been a PUD? The staff would have had some. Exactly. And I tell you, I mean, the whole discussion that we've had with Walmart has been very
amenable. They have significantly met our coach standards with internal drives, sidewalks,
landscaping. Really, the only deviations is the glazing. There may be some minor architectural
deviations and some building site deviations. So they're very minimal and that's often the
goal staff is to work with an applicant to reduce the deviations toward when it comes to this commission.
We don't have to have a plethora of deviations. And to your point, the glazing requirements
are very ornerous and I did discuss that with the architect. It's a challenge sometimes with a big box store to have a 50 was in this case, it's going to be a 70% glazing requirement because it is a pod. So it is something that I think staff can feel comfortable with the deviation. But again, it's a pod so it's up to the commission.
So so they're operating under the 70% glazing requirement for a building that is what square what's the square footage of this building a 45,000 square feet
45,000 square foot buildings gonna have to be 70% glazed just on the front facade just right right
I'm a facade, but still 70% that would have to be glazed
Yeah, and they did show that where it possibly could be achieved, but they did remove some glazing
We got it pretty cool for that, but it did come close
Well, the conversations that I have had with Walmart actually have been very complimentary
of staff.
And so, so thank you for ordering them.
But it was, it's a great point that the PUD is the reason.
So, is it true, then, Ms. Brass, that if this were not a PUD, maybe I've already asked this
when we asked one more time, if this were not a PUD, what they are requesting would have
been within staff's discretion to approve?
It would keep in mind it still would be a site development plan with architectural review.
So it would come before planning commission, regardless though, because it would be a site
development plan for approval.
Yes.
They're very inquest.
They wouldn't be able to ask for deviations, but they could ask for alternative compliance.
But again, to the point being made, if it was something that they asked staff for alternative
compliance, it's really a kind of a substitution.
what are you substituting for not providing the glazing? A staff is able to do that. But again,
because it's a PUD, we don't have that authority to make that decision. That makes sense. I guess the
point is if they met everything, it will come before this five. Yeah, exactly. But this is the one
vice mayor that I believe it's the same property where we actually went back and forth on the
PUD versus the zone. And I think you made the point that was rightfully made that if we had
re-zoned it and taken it out of the bud that they could have gone in there and straight
zoned it to some of whatever the appropriate residential would have been, and so keeping
it in a bud sort of protected that from happening on the other hand now and around about
way, it's almost slowing it down a little bit, but I mean it's like paying for an insurance
policy almost.
That did create your ordinance amendment though that limits multi-family within so many
hundred feet of an arterial. So if that was come up today there would be more
protection from what the concerns were at council for cars and the multi-family
taking over that parcel. In other words the vice mayor's concern about the
residential piece would have been maybe obviated as a result of the update. Yes
sir I think it's 300 feet I think. 400 feet. So 400 feet. We were worried about it
turned into another car. That's right. Well that was the one north in the
Yeah, but actually both yeah, I mean remember they wanted to put a car wash. I think somewhere in there
They could've easily put a car wash on there. So you're actually more worried about the commercial what the commercial is going to be
We're getting what we're getting what the residents won't yeah, it's just taking a little harder
But they will do y'all know they will do what they we ask them to do. Yeah, it's come a long ways
Yeah, yeah, a lot of ways and I don't know if they're really complaining that much or just
I think a lot of people in this area are really excited about the grocery store option.
And if I'm hearing people excited about a grocery store, to me, that means there's probably
a lot of need up in there.
Which I did highlight.
I mean, it did seem like they want to feel confident that when they come to planning commission,
that it'll be a recommended approval.
That was something that was of concern to them.
I did let them know in the past strategic plan, I do believe there was a grocery store in the north side was in the strategic plan so it kind of meets an overarching goal and vision, but I think the zoning code has everything laid out so it's very cut and clear.
I think sometimes and challenges with puds as historically it has been.
It's kind of an unbeknown what are they going to like, what are they not going to like, but in this case we have the code.
basically says what are they doing, what they're not doing, so of course it's about it with the
new zoning code outlining the standards. This may not be the place to ask but you know kind of
on the note of what we're discussing here with it being a put versus it has straight zoning and maybe
staff could have had to a little bit more freedom to approve some things. Maybe ultimately what I'm
concerned or curious about is the quality of what we're going to get. Is it about the same if no
matter which is on it would have been? I mean you know we're going to end results going to be about
The design standards albeit the glazing requirements, very similar same
articulation material standards, internal dry frontage standards, parking lot,
landscaping standards, it's very similar to the two zoning districts.
And just so the vice-mariner is now Walmart was not complaining at all.
In fact, and I don't know if who I've been speaking with is who you all have worked
but it's their director of real estate and they were actually very, very complimentary.
I was just when they were explaining, they were updating me on why they were requesting
a deferral and I've talked them throughout the project and they just mentioned some of those
things that made me sort of question, all right, I was thinking we had sort of solve that,
but the point is she makes perfect sense of allowing me to sort of reeducate on that.
So I'd make the motion to the far.
second. I have a motion, a second. Vice Mayor, any further discussion? Let's see, now we'll call the vote.
Here, make room. Uh-huh.
Aye.
Stand up.
Aye.
This is the floor.
Aye.
No.
Aye.
Item is deferred.
It brings us to other business.
business.
It looks like we do have one public comment signed up here, Mr. Moore.
We're going to come forward, state your name, and you'll have your three minutes to
reinforce before this commission.
Thank you.
I have some handouts to give, but I'm from Taylor Landing, and I appreciate you giving
an opportunity to speak here. But I spoke the last time about Taylor landing and we had
a lot of problems. And I'm really, I really came here because of the bonds, but I want
to make sure that you know what's going on with Taylor landings. You don't release these
bonds before, you know, they should be because there appears to be some clear violations
of the site construction plan, the stormwater maintenance plan, and building safety regulations.
And the city, according to my correspondence, Mr. Keltner and Mr. Hartford, they never really
verified the topsoil depth, but this is a component of the site construction plan and
the soil stabilization.
The inspections that they talked about only checked the presence of vegetation, sea
germination and straw, but the regulation states that certificates of occupancy shall not
be issued until soil is stabilized in accordance with the approved construction plans.
And as I said, the approved construction plans for tailor landing drafted by Reagan Smith
for marriage required six inches of topsoil for grass and nine inch layers for trees and shrubs.
And this was not optional. And the soil tests that we confirmed only had one to three inches of topsoil.
So they skimped on the topsoil. And this we believe has led to landscaping failures, erosion,
and likely pollution of a jurisdictional wetland in the Duck River.
Marriage still has nearly $350,000 in bonds across six open bonds and six incomplete
punchlists.
And we found in the last month that 6% of the homes have had electrical fires or hazards
and many more reported miswiring issues.
And so the state's fire marshal's office is now investigating their potential missing
permits and inspections related to the fire and electrical inspections and the city when
they did a walk through last year they discovered debris in a jurisdictional wetland last October but
apparently the notices were never sent to marriage but they were promised that they would be sent
and the debris apparently remains there today I also sold debris personally and the city
has apparently not notified T-deck of this authorized discharge and we've
learned that the city is now working with marriage on a massive old Zion
development which I guess is going to be much larger than even Taylor
landing so my question is why is the city entertaining new projects with with
marriage when marriage has violated so many of the construction plans at Taylor
landing and also the city regulations they will unsafe homes with 6% 6% of
electrical fires or hazards in the homes, 6% of the homes. That's not normal, so I
ask you before any release any more bonds or approve anything else for marriage,
that you please enforce our site construction plan and our stormwater maintenance agreements
and you get this situation cleaned up. Marriage must complete all of its outstanding work before
being allowed to exit this development, including, I believe, reinstallation of all our landscaping,
giving us the correct six to nine inches of top soil that was in the construction
plan that the regulation required so that our soil would be stabilized and we
won't be polluting the duck river and our jurisdiction for wetland. So I thank
you very much and I think that homeowners should not be left with all these
costly repairs and all of these problems just because the city didn't enforce its
own regulations. Thank you.
inspection is an idea to be done before that is done. It's in here. Normal to do list it anyway.
So, I make a question. So, I believe that the 350,000 could be used to help some of this
problem. Make marriage, make care of some of these. The street, washing out on that side.
Yeah, so the letter of credit covers all the construction,
completed construction for the product.
What would you enforce?
We give them plenty of notice and plenty of ability to do it.
It's been through the winter, so they were asking for better weather to do some of the work.
But we give them notice, give them 30, 69 days, and then we can call the letter of credit if need be.
Okay, I mean I didn't leave that up to you. I had to work on this, but I'll let them take Mr. Moore can kind of understand the process that we're doing. Now the electrical stuff, the city is not responsible for that.
There's nothing we can do about that because the state's got their own inspectors on that. Now what's y'all done right there is probably, unfortunately you had to do that, but we can't do anything about the letter.
But so Mr. Harper seems to be going on the road that y'all need.
Now I can tell you this up front that six to nine inches of top soul.
I've been thinking about that.
I don't know how to solve it.
I mean, they might work something out with marriage.
It makes everybody happy or, like the mayor says, make bow people mad so that's a good agreement.
But that would be, but I think Gleen is going, or Mr. Harper is going in the right direction.
I'm going to release the 350 unless the things I see will just kind of stay with them and hopefully it'll go the way you want it.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks for having us more.
I'll say your other discussion.
Is that the other business?
I don't know.
I'll take a motion to adjourn.
Second.
Second, motion.
Discussion on that, we'll follow the book.
Ah.
Aye.
Second.
Aye.
Meeting adjourned.
What do you know?
Yeah.