Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Multifamily Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves 314-unit Gregg Street apartments site plan; public raises concerns about market saturation
Summary
The City of Columbia Planning Commission voted to approve a major site plan for a three‑building, 314‑unit multifamily development on Gregg and Barnwell streets, conditioning approval on staff comments. A nearby resident warned commissioners about an ongoing pipeline of student-oriented housing and questioned demand for additional units.
The City of Columbia Planning Commission approved a major site plan application for a three‑building multifamily development and associated six‑story parking garage in the 1200 blocks of Gregg and Barnwell streets at its September meeting. The approval was made by voice vote and was conditioned on resolving all staff comments.
The project, described in the application as Gregg Street Apartments, would contain 314 apartments, surface parking and a six‑story parking garage with long‑term and short‑term bicycle parking. Chandler Culberson, speaking for the applicant, said he was prepared to answer questions and described the proposal as market‑rate housing.
The commission heard public concern that the city may have more new units in the pipeline than the market can absorb. Jim Daniel, who identified himself as president of the Louisville Neighborhood Association, urged commissioners to consider citywide demand before approving more multifamily projects, listing recent and proposed student and market developments. "Y'all are rubber stamping every application that comes before you for new housing apartments without looking at the big picture," Daniel said.
Culberson responded that the project was intentionally configured as market‑rate housing and not affiliated with the university. "We've set it up intentionally to be market rate so anybody can be, rented," he said, adding that while students may be interested because of proximity, the applicant was "not working with the university on any of that."
Commissioners also reminded each other of the commission's review role. One commissioner noted the body must determine whether an application meets the Unified Development Ordinance site plan decision standards rather than make market‑demand judgments outside that scope.
After questions and public comment, a commissioner moved to approve the major site plan S Plan 2025‑0012 "upon all staff comments being addressed, and that will meet all site plan decision standards." The motion passed by voice vote.
The approval is a recommendation to move forward with site plan conditions; final permits and any outstanding technical issues must be addressed before construction. The record of the meeting does not show a roll‑call tally; the action was taken by voice vote and recorded in the minutes as "motion passes."
