Columbia DDRC approves 174‑unit mixed‑use building on Blossom, with conditions

The Design and Development Review Commission on Monday approved a certificate of design approval for a 174‑unit mixed‑use apartment building at the Hughey/Blossom/Pulaski intersection in the Innovista design district, with conditions requiring additional ground‑floor activation, material changes and coordination on right‑of‑way improvements.

The approval covers a building that will rise five to six stories, include about 263 structured parking spaces and roughly 5,400 square feet of ground‑floor retail, and faces Pulaski, Hughey and Blossom streets. The commission’s action was taken after a staff presentation, comments from the applicant and brief public testimony in support; the motion passed on a recorded vote of 6–0.

Staff told the commission the project “substantially meets the design guidelines” but recommended a set of conditions to reduce the visual impact of visible parking openings, better activate the Blossom Street frontage, refine materials on a north‑facing base, and ensure rooftop equipment and right‑of‑way fixtures are appropriately screened or located. The staff report noted the building’s Pulaski‑street facade would be about 61 feet tall (five stories) while the Hughey‑street end reaches about 81 feet (six stories), reflecting the site topography.

Josh Harding, with PMC Property Group, said the developer has worked in Columbia since 2004 and welcomed staff and neighborhood feedback. “We are excited for another project in Columbia, South Carolina,” Harding said. Kevin Rutledge of Strada, the project design team, said the design takes cues from nearby mill buildings while using contemporary materials and that the development team has adjusted drawings after neighborhood input. “We appreciate the collaboration with staff and with the neighborhood group input,” Rutledge said.

Two public speakers, Adam Nagler, a Granby resident, and Joe Peter, a member of the Mill District Alliance and vice president of the Granby Hill Alliance, voiced support. Nagler said, “we're in support of everything they've done so far.” Peter told the commission the developer “has done everything we've asked them to do” and offered the neighborhood’s “wholehearted support.”

Commissioners discussed staff recommendations including murals or other treatments for ground‑level wall faces, particularly the north elevation where concrete block may be exposed to public view; alignment of ground‑floor openings on the sloping Blossom Street frontage; additional planters and seating; and screening for rooftop mechanical equipment visible from the Blossom Street bridge approach.

The commission’s conditions, as read into the record and included in the motion, require the applicant to: - activate identified sections of the Blossom Street and north facades with murals, vertically oriented landscaping, surface ornamentation and decorative lighting and to coordinate mural commissioning with Columbia arts partners; - better align the bottoms of ground‑floor openings on Blossom Street to reflect the slope of the site; - add planters and seating to the pedestrian realm and place decorative Omero light fixtures adjacent to (not within) the furnishing zone; - coordinate encroachment improvements in the right of way with staff to meet city standards; - break the Blossom Street facade into more pedestrian‑scaled sections by distinguishing ground and upper floors and adding articulation to the five stories above the base; - explore extending gray brick at the southwest corner to the second story, increase ground‑floor openings on the Hughey and Pulaski facades where feasible, and add vertical articulation through varied bay heights on Blossom Street; - study the westward approach from the Blossom Street bridge and add screening for rooftop equipment if needed; - explore alternative cladding on the north elevation base where it will be visible from Pulaski and Eugene streets; - add awnings above active ground‑floor spaces on Pulaski Street, strengthen the roofline through a cantilever or thicker cornice, and further articulate upper‑story windows with deeper jambs or small sunshades; and - return signage for separate review and submit any subsequent design changes to staff for review.

The applicant indicated willingness to work with staff on the listed items and that additional drawings submitted at the end of the presentation show design directions that respond to the recommendations; the commission noted those late drawings were not part of the materials under consideration.

Votes at a glance - Motion to approve certificate of design approval for properties at 602 Hughey, 603, 609 and 613 Pulaski and associated parcels with conditions — outcome: approved. Vote recorded as: Marybeth Sims Branham, yes; Miss Gallo, yes; Mister Greenberg, yes; Mister Lee Decker, yes; Mister Shelton, yes; Miss Thomas, yes. (Yes: 6; No: 0; Abstain: 0; Absent/not recorded: 2.)

Next steps The commission’s decision is subject to the city’s encroachment and permitting processes; signage will return for separate review and the applicant must submit any design changes for staff review. Appeals of DDRC decisions may be filed within the local statutory appeal period, as noted by staff during the meeting.

The project sits adjacent to the renovated Palmetto Compress building and to other recent mixed‑use developments in Innovista; neighborhood groups told the commission they had been engaged early in the design process and supported the project with the recommended refinements.