City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Planning and Zoning Commission

Columbia City Hall

Council Chambers

701 E Broadway

Thursday, March 6, 2025

7:00 PM

Regular Meeting

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. INTRODUCTIONS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Good evening. I will now call the March 6, 2025 meeting

of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Williams, may we please have a roll call?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, you may. Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Here.

MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: Here.

MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: Here.

MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: Here.

MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Here.

MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Here.

MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Geuea Jones?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Here.

MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Williams? Here. Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Here.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's all nine. We have a quorum.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much.

9 -

Present:

Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Sharon Geuea Jones, Peggy Placier, Shannon Wilson,

Thomas Williams, Robert Walters, McKenzie Ortiz and David Brodsky

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any changes or adjustments to the agenda, Mr.

Zenner?

MR. ZENNER: No, there are not, ma'am.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a motion to approve?

MR. STANTON: Move to approve the agenda.

MS. LOE: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Approval moved by Mr. Stanton, seconded by Commissioner

Loe. Thumbs up approval on the agenda?

(Unanimous vote for approval.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous. Thank you.

Move to approve the agenda.

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

February 20, 2025 Regular Meeting

MS. GEUEA JONES: We all received a copy of the February 20th, 2025 regular

meeting minutes. Is there any changes or adjustments to the minutes? Seeing none. Is

there a motion to approve?

MR. STANTON: Move to approve the minutes.

MS. ORTIZ: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by

Commissioner Ortiz. Is there a thumbs-up approval on the minutes?

(Seven votes for approval; two abstentions.)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Unanimous with two Commissioners abstaining,

Commissioner Walters and Commissioner Geuea Jones. Thank you.

V. TABLING REQUESTS

Case # 84-2025

A request by Justin Lucas, on behalf Family First Rental & Investments,

LLC (owner), for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow 3411

Goldenwood Drive to be used as a short-term rental for a maximum of 8

transient guests and up to 210 nights annually pursuant to Sec. 29-3.3(vv)

and Sec. 29-6.4(m)(2) of the Unified Development Code. The

approximately 0.21-acre subject site is located 150 feet east of the

intersection of Arbor Pointe Parkway and Goldenwood Drive and includes

the address 3411 Goldenwood Drive. (A request to table this matter to

the April 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting has been

submitted)

MS. GEUEA JONES: Can we please have a staff report?

MR. ZENNER: Yes, you may, ma'am. This was a publicly advertised hearing, so if

there are any present that would like to speak in regards to the tabling request, we would

typically allow that. The applicant is requesting a tabling. They are -- they were not able

to be present this evening. Given the volume that is on our March 20th agenda, we had

requested that they table to the April 10th agenda before we knew what our volume for the

April 10th agenda would be. So it is at its maximum tabling length with the first tabling

request pursuant to internal procedure. We only will allow a tabling for two months from

its initial hearing date. So this is the max before we will have to send -- before we would

have to formally readvertise. We have sent out notification postcards prior to this

evening's meal -- meeting, indicating that the item was being requested for tabling, and

we'll send out new public notification prior to the April 10th meeting, allowing all interested

parties to be aware that the hearing will be occurring on the April 10th agenda. With that,

we support the request given that the applicant was not able to be present, and if you

have any questions, more than happy to answer them.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff about the tabling

request? Seeing none. This is just a tabling request. We are not making any decisions

about the merits of the case tonight, but if anyone was here to speak on this case and

would like to come forward, please do so now.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Seeing none. We will close opportunity for public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any Commissioner's comments on the tabling

request? Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: If there are no comments, I'll make a motion to table -- I move to table

Case 84-2025 to April 10th, 2025 date certain.

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion to table to date certain April 10th, 2025 was made by

Commissioner Loe, seconded by Commissioner Stanton. Is there any discussion on the

motion? Seeing none. May we please have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters, Mr. Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea

Jones, Mr. Williams, Ms. Loe. Motion carries 9-0.

MR. WILLIAMS: Nine yeses and zero nos.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That matter will be tabled to the April 10th, 2025

meeting. The next case is also a tabling motion.

Move to table Case 84-2025 to April 10th, 2025 date certain.

9 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Williams, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

Case # 90-2025

Yes:

A request by A Civil Group (agent), on behalf of Bucky C, LLC (owner), for

approval of a design adjustment seeking relief from the provisions of Sec.

29-5.1(f)(1)(iv)(D) of the UDC relating to required minimum lot frontage

along collector and arterial streets such that individual driveway access

may be permitted and approval of a 1-lot final plat of M-C (Mixed Use -

Corridor) zoned property to be known as "Oscar Plat 1". The approximately

0.55-acre subject site is located at the northwest corner of Vandiver Drive

and Range Line Street, and includes the address 1901 Range Line Street.

(A request to table this matter to the April 10, 2025 Planning

Commission meeting has been submitted).

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?

MR. ZENNER: Yes, you may, ma'am. Similar to the prior request, this was an

advertised public hearing for the design adjustment as required by the UDC, so if there

are any members of the public here, they may be offered an opportunity to speak to the

tabling. The purpose for the tabling request is that additional discussion with MoDOT,

who is the responsible party for the -- one of the primary driveway access points to this

site off of Rangeline Street is still needing to be coordinated with by the applicant.

Vandiver Drive is a City maintained roadway, and any potential additional discussion with

our City's traffic engineer in regards to that driveway approach could also be facilitated

during this delay. Again, this is the maximum delay that would be permitted prior to

having to readvertise; however, property owners were notified in advance of the requested

tabling and will be renotified prior to the April 10th meeting. If you have any questions, I'm

more than happy to answer them.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Seeing none.

Once again, we will not be deciding on the merits of this case tonight, but if anyone

would like to come forward and comment on the tabling motion, we will give you an

opportunity to do so now.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Seeing none. We will close opportunity for public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any Commissioner comments on this case?

Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: If there are no comments, in Case 90-2025, I move to table the case to

April 10th, 2025, date certain.

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner Loe, seconded by Commissioner

Stanton. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. Commissioner Williams,

may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters, Mr. Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea

Jones, Mr. Williams, Ms. Loe. Motion carries 9-0.

MR. WILLIAMS: It’s nine to zero.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That case will be tabled to April 10th, 2025.

Moving right along.

Move to table the case to April 10th, 2025, date certain.

9 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Williams, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

Yes:

VI. SUBDIVISION REQUESTS

Case # 91-2025

A request by McClure Engineering (agent), on behalf of COR Development

LLC (owner), for approval of a 4-lot preliminary plat of M-C (Mixed Use -

Corridor) zoned property to be known as “Crown Center Plaza Preliminary

Plat”. The approximately 14-acre subject site is located at the southeast

corner of Grindstone Parkway and State Farm Parkway, and includes the

address 1110 Nifong Boulevard.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?

Staff report was given by Mr. Kirtis Orendorff of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of "Crown Center Plaza

Subdivision", subject to technical corrections regarding the dedication of utility

easements along the northern edge of the subject site.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Before we go to questions for staff, if

any of my fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a

public hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Any questions for staff? Seeing --

oh, Commissioner Williams, go ahead.

MR. WILLIAMS: For the traffic piece on the State Farm Parkway going south, is it

going to -- is the road going to have to be expanded then to the west? I was just looking

at a map of how it lays now. Is that -- I was just curious if there is enough room. As it's

going south right now, it's one lane, I believe.

MR. ORENDORFF: Yeah. So the -- the plan is illustrated there is they would shift

the lane to the west. Now the right-of-way that's -- that I mentioned that was way wider

than it needed to be just for the pavement, they're still well within that right-of-way

corridor, if you will. So, yes, it would be expanded as far as the pavement is concerned,

but it would still be within their -- their right-of-way dedication.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. We will go to

public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: If any members of the public are here to speak on this case,

please come forward now. Seeing none. We will close public comment and go to

Commissioner comments.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any Commissioner comments? Seeing none. Anyone want

to make a motion? Go ahead, Commissioner Loe.

MS. LOE: Thank you. In the case of 91-2025, move to approve the Crown Center

Plaza preliminary plat.

MR. STANTON: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. Do we --

MS. LOE: Do we need to include subject to -- no? All right.

MS. GEUEA JONES: We have a motion for approval made by Commissioner Loe,

seconded by Commissioner Stanton. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Williams, may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters, Mr. Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea

Jones, Mr. Williams, Ms. Loe. Motion carries 9-0.

MR. WILLIAMS: Nine yeses and zero nos.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City

Council.

MS. GEUEA JONES: We have two cases that are connected to the same

property, but we will hear them separately.

Move to approve the Crown Center Plaza preliminary plat.

9 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Williams, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

Yes:

VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SUBDIVISION REQUESTS

Case # 86-2025

A request by A Civil Group (agent), on behalf of Adam Kopriva (owner), for

approval to permanently rezone 5.05 acres of property from County R-S

(Single Family Residential) to the City R-2 (Two-Family Dwelling) upon

annexation into the city. Concurrent with this application is a proposed

preliminary plat (Case # 87-2025) that seeks to divide the acreage into a

32-lot “cottage” development, subject to Board of Adjustment approval

allowing the use R-2 “optional dimensional standards”. Assignment of

permanent zoning and annexation are required in advance of any Board of

Adjustment action and approval of the concurrent preliminary plat. The

subject site is located about 200 feet northeast of the intersection of Mule

Deer Drive and North Wyatt Lane, and includes the address 4100 N Wyatt

Lane.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Our action here will be just on the zoning. May we please

have a staff report?

Staff report was given by Mr. David Kunz of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the request to permanently zone the subject

5.05-acre site in the R-2 (Two-Family Dwelling) subject to annexation into the City.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my

fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Any questions for staff? Seeing none.

We will go to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: We -- thank you -- we do allow for six minutes for the

applicant and groups, three minutes for individuals. Please state your name and address

for the record, and, Jay, you're going to have to -- yeah -- move that up. Speak directly

into the microphone so that our folks listening at home can hear us.

MR. GEBHARDT: All right. Thank you, Sharon. My name is Jay Gebhardt; I'm an

owner of A Civil Group. I'm here tonight representing Adam Kopriva, and just for full

disclosure, Adam is an employee of A Civil Group. He's one of my surveyors. So -- I

provided one PowerPoint presentation that kind of combines the plat and the rezoning

together, so I'm going to go through that now because I think a lot of questions are going

to come up about the preliminary plat even though I know this is about the rezoning to R-

2. So, you know, as David has done and typically does, he's done a really good job of

detailing all the information around this, but there are sufficient resources for this zoning

at this location. There is existing sewer capacity. There's water capacity. It's on a

collector street. We have to comply with all City regulations for stormwater, so there's

been a lot of concerns from neighbors about things like that, and we've tried to address

them as best we can. This slide just kind of gives you the location of it, but I also

included a slide from 2002 that showed Adam's house there before any development

occurred there. This is a copy of the preliminary plat. It shows the 31 cottage lots, and

that large inside that loop is the common area lot for the detention. So some questions

have come up about, you know, how -- how -- what size are these houses, what kind of

houses would they be. Are they going to be rentals? Are they going to be for sale? And

a lot of people were not believing that you could get a 1,200 square foot house on this lot.

So this -- this is an example. It's not representative of necessarily of what exactly is

going to be built, but I just threw this together, and with two examples, one with a two-car

garage, and one with a one-car garage with an additional space, and I think David is going

to detail that out in the preliminary plat for you, but I'm just showing how -- how that all

works on the lot. This is an example of one that was approved, a cottage development

was approved on Northridge. It's built. Those homes are -- have been sold, and this is

another one that's -- has not been built off of Old Plank Road, but it is surrounded by

existing R-1. And then this one is up off Oakland and is currently not built, but I think the

preliminary plat has been approved, and the cottage standards have been approved for it.

These are examples from Zillow of homes that are in these existing cottage standards

lots, and kind of the price point for them, so I'm trying to illustrate here that, you know,

these -- these are normal looking houses, they're not, you know, anything necessarily

different. There's some more. There's a two-story example with a one-car garage. And

that's really all I have as far as the zoning. If you guys have questions about that, I can

get back up during the -- for the preliminary plat, but I really just want to try to answer any

questions you might have.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Are there any questions for this

speaker? Commissioner Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: And this isn't necessarily germane to the zoning itself, but just

curious. Is the -- the current owner, is he intending to develop all of these lots himself?

Is he going to sell some of the lots off?

MR. GEBHARDT: No. We're going to get through the entitlement phase of this to

get the right to do the -- that, and then his intention is to market it to builders or -- then to

complete the subdivision. But to get to the point where all those approvals have been

done, you know, his day job is land surveying, he's not a developer.

MR. BRODSKY: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? No. Thank you very much. Next

speaker, please come forward. Next speaker on this case? If you wanted to come now,

you could. You're okay. We're nice. State your name and address for the record to get

started.

MR. CROW: My name is Emery Crow; I live at 4215 North White Lane in the trailers,

and, you know, being just north of this area, and we knew the original owner of that

property. We liked it where it was pretty quiet. And as, you know, a family living there,

you know, the reason why we moved outside the city limits to get as far away as

possible, but things keep getting closer and closer. Well, with -- we feel having 32 of

these small homes there, and that it -- that road, even though we say it's a major thing

there, it's small. People slip slide all around constantly in that, and it's not very wide, and

to add that much traffic and everything in that area would be extremely dangerous. And

then there's -- you know, we're worried about our kids and everybody else's children there,

too. So -- and my next part will be on 87-2025.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. One moment, please. Any questions?

Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: So I'm assuming you don't like this current development?

MR. CROW: No. No, I do not.

MR. STANTON: Okay. Put yourself in the owner's shoes. What would you like?

What would you do if it was you, and it was your land, and you were addressing

someone like you, what would be a good compromise?

MR. CROW: Yeah. I think about -- so if I'm already out there and I -- and I'm buying

an area where it's supposed to be outside the city limits, it's a little quieter and everything

else, and it's a nice plot of land. That's what I would have bought it for. And I'm not a

developer or anything like that, so if somebody bought it just for the simple reason of

making money, that's not me.

MR. STANTON: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions?

MS. ORTIZ: I -- I do.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, sorry. Please, sir. Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: How many manufactured homes are there in your, like, area there?

MR. CROW: In my area? I don’t know exactly.

MS. ORTIZ: Okay. Okay. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker on this case, please

come forward. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record and then -

MS. FERGUSON: My name is Denise Ferguson; I live at 5401 Axis Court.

MS. ORTIZ: You're going to have to move your microphone down.

MS. FERGUSON: Oh, I'm so sorry.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Commissioner.

MS. FERGUSON: Did you hear that? Okay. Can you hear me now?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Good.

MS. FERGUSON: The property that we are talking about is actually directly behind

my home. My husband and I bought our home eight years ago. At that time, Mr. Brown

had a farm back there, and as the other gentleman said, it's a very quiet neighborhood.

We love our neighbors. We all get along very well and we would like to see the zoning

not as it is being requested. We would rather see something like our own and

incorporate it into our own Deer Ridge if that's at all possible. My husband and I oppose

having 32-unit cottages on a five-acre piece of land because of the density. As the other

gentleman mentioned, it is a narrow road, but he did not mention this. There are dump

trucks and flatbed trucks that haul dirt and cars to the salvage yard beyond every day,

particularly in the summer, two and three times a day, and they speed through there. So

I think that the safety issue may be something that the Commission might want to look

at. Barbed wire fence is around the whole perimeter. Again, it was a farm. The old guy

that used to own it, he was a farmer. We understood that eight years ago when we

bought our home. We were fine with Yuri having his barbed wire fence up there. It's

rusted out, it's old, it's dingy. Children shouldn't be near it. I should know, I'm a teacher.

We should be having at least the owner of that fence take that fence out. I haven't had

any answer that said that that was going to happen, but it honestly should. Again, our

yard, we back up to it. It's a narrow back yard, that 16-foot easement, yeah, that would

pretty well infringe into us because when we bought it, we bought it on purpose to have a

small yard. We're retired. We don't need that much yard. We have a lot of native plants

out there. I plant it constantly. I invite anybody to come out and take a look, it's

beautiful. I'll even give you a cup of coffee. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any questions for this speaker? Seeing none. Thank you

very much, ma'am. Next speaker, please come forward. Going once. There we go.

MR. AREY: Hi. I'm Bennett Arey; I live at 5655 South Cordevalle Court. I'm in real

estate in town, and new construction and rentals, and in the real estate world, we're

always looking for more affordable houses. I mean, that's what -- that's like a buzz word

right now with everyone in town in real estate. And so as far as, like, affordable houses

go, I think Jay showed some examples of what they would be priced at. Those are a very

similar situation of what would go up there. It's more just getting to -- we're a growing

city. I mean, there's no way around that, and I think this is a perfect opportunity to create

more listings of houses that are at that $250 prime kind of price point to, you know, help

the growing town just grow and give opportunities to families as a turnkey kind of

possibility, so -- and I think as far as, like -- I think there is maybe some worries about

low income. I mean, the houses that are $250,000, that's at least a $2,000 rental. So, I

mean, these are small families, single families or, you know, retired people that would be

moving into this place. And I'm excited for it being in real estate, as an opportunity to

have more opportunities for my buyers to buy actual affordable housing in town, so that’s

all I’ve got.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Commissioner

Stanton?

MR. STANTON: The word "affordable house" is a trigger for me because I don't think

that's really the intention. Logic, love it. Are these really -- are you involved in this, or are

you just a neighborhood and you're just kind of voicing your opinion?

MR. AREY: I'm interested in helping the development, yes.

MR. STANTON: That's all I have. Just --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MR. STANTON: -- be careful with that affordable housing word.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for this speaker? Seeing none. Thank

you very much for being here tonight. Next?

MR. TALLMAGE: Hello. My name is Allen Tallmage; and I live on Elder Drive, which

is west of that property. I am concerned about the density of the lots, the homes that are

going to put there. Cottages, I don't know the dimensions of the lots. I've heard that they

were only 40-foot wide. A 40-foot-wide lot is not nearly big enough to create a living

space for either -- a small growing family. I have concerns about the possibility that it

may become a problem for the other residents who actually live out there. I've been there

for 30 years. I like it. I have eight acres there. It's very quiet. I don't have any problem

with anyone, and I can only see this becoming a problem for me and for the other

residents that are there in that area who want to maintain that -- the distance from their

neighbors. So questions for me?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Thinking in consideration in your position, if you owned that land

and someone was approaching you exactly like you're approaching us, what would be a

win-win situation? Due to the fact I have a right to my land, I have a right to do what I

want to do on my land. What alternative would you offer that would make you make it a

win-win for both your position and the right to develop my land?

MR. TALLMAGE: I -- I -- yeah. My problem -- I have six and a half acres at the -- off

of Elder Drive, and then I have six lots. I don't want to develop it, and I really think that

this -- this development is going a little bit too far providing such a dense area for 32

families. I don't think there's anything out there that's like that anywhere. The lots are all

decent sized. To make them 40 foot by 100 foot is -- my house sits on 100 foot by 100

foot, and even that is small. So -- and cottages really concern me. To me, that's not --

that's not really a -- I think that's a substandard living area or that it would become a

substandard living area because they are so small.

MR. STANTON: Just for the record --

MR. TALLMAGE: Uh-huh?

MR. STANTON: -- I live in a 918 square foot house, three bedroom, one bath, for

generations.

MR. TALLMAGE: Uh-huh.

MR. STANTON: I don't think it was substandard.

MR. TALLMAGE: How big is your lot?

MR. STANTON: I don't know, but my house is 918 square feet.

MR. TALLMAGE: Right. Okay.

MR. STANTON: Living space.

MR. TALLMAGE: But how close are your neighbors?

MR. STANTON: Probably about as close as this development is. I live in the central

city. I live two blocks away from here.

MR. TALLMAGE: Yeah. Uh-huh.

MR. STANTON: That's smack in the middle of town, so -- I'm -- this is why I --

you know, said that --

MR. TALLMAGE: That's -- and that's -- and that's where you choose to live, and I

understand that. But the people that live in this area aren't -- don't really -- I don't know of

anyone who is interested in allowing this development to go on.

MR. STANTON: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for this speaker? I have a quick -- of

course, you -- you said you live on an eight-acre lot?

MR. TALLMAGE: I have -- I have six lots. They're 100 foot by 100 foot, and then I

have 6.5 acres that are on the south side of the lots.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So you -- you don't live in some of the built houses around

here?

MR. TALLMAGE: No.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Okay.

MR. TALLMAGE: My home is the only home on Elder Drive.

MS GEUEA JONES: Got it. Thank you very much. Anyone else to speak? Thank

you, sir, very much for coming tonight. Appreciate you. Anyone else, please come

forward.

MR. MELVIN: Hello. My name is Billy Melvin; and I live right across the street from

Adam. I knew why Adam bought it, and I don't blame him for subdividing it. It's just I

don't want to see a whole bunch of rentals where they rent it to Section 8, and then

downsize the price of my land. And all the kids that will be there coming on my land. I've

lived there for 40 years, and not once been broke into. But, like I say, I just don't want it

to become a big hassle for me, and I don't know if there's any way that they can't make it

where they make it Section 8. I mean, I don't care how many he puts in, but it's going to

cause problems. I just don't want the problems to be mine.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Got it. Any questions for this speaker? Commissioner

Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: I probably should have asked Mr. Gebhardt this question, but since

you have lived across the street for 40 years, I'll ask you, if you don't mind.

MR. MELVIN: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Gebhardt showed a slide, you may have been in here and seen

it, about what the property looked like when the house was built, and I'm gathering that

the current owner is rather new to the property; is that correct?

MR. MELVIN: The current owner?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. MELVIN: Lives across the street from me.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. And he's new to the property? He just bought it recently?

MR. MELVIN: Yeah. He just bought it I don't know how long ago when Gary died.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Okay. I just wanted to get clarity on how long he had lived

there, and I figured you would know since you've lived there for 40 years, that --

MR. MELVIN: Yeah. Yeah. So -- but that's -- that's what -- I just don't want it to

bring down having, you know, you've got 31 lots times some of them could have four kids,

and I'm 71. I'm done with all the little kids.

MR. WILLIAMS: So I want to be delicate about this, and I -- I know these concerns

come up. I -- I -- and I appreciate your -- your being direct with us, and I will say that I

personally can't speak to Section 8 and how something becomes Section 8 or what have

you. but it is difficult to predict the -- when a lot like this is -- the property is developed, is

difficult to predict, you know, what the price point is going to be of the houses and what

the mix of individuals living there is going to be, and I'm reluctant to go any further than

that in discussing it, but I just would say that it's difficult and I don't think we can

assume, as a Commission that just because a certain density is built, that it's

necessarily going to result in particular problems that might be concerning as -- as

possible outcomes for people living around the area.

MS. GEUEA JONES: That’s very delicate, Commissioner Williams. Commissioner

Wilson? Okay. Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: A Civil Group gave a presentation, and they showed basically some

of the models that are considered cottage. And like the previous speaker, and I told them

to be careful with the word affordable, these are not going to be that. They're under the

$250 -- maybe $250,000 price point.

MR. MELVIN: Right.

MR. STANTON: I didn't hear rental, I heard sold. There is a big market for cottage

for people of above 50. I don't want to call them elderly, but where they don't want a lot of

yard.

MR. MELVIN: Right.

MR. STANTON: They just need just a certain amount of space to live. There's a very

big market for that. These are not of size to raise a big family. Just the term cottage

doesn't afford that size that someone raising a family would buy a cottage home if they

had a bunch of kids. So I think the price points that they're looking for will probably be

comparable if not superior to some of the houses that are surrounding -- in the

surrounding area. I understand your concern with density. I think you have a lot of

implicit biases that we could probably hash out with the -- with the developers due to the

fact that you're neighbors. I think some of those questions you could ask the owner and

the developer, the engineer, and I bet he could answer a lot of those biases for you.

MR. MELVIN: Yeah.

MR. STANTON: I think you would get a better answer and a better feel of realistically

how -- what's going to go on out there.

MR. MELVIN: Well, I've been in the construction field. I kind of know what's going

on. I just didn't figure he'd do that much. I figured maybe one lot on the south side of his

house and maybe four or five on these over here, not 31. That's what I thought.

MR. STANTON: Thank you.

MR. MELVIN: And then the houses would be -- I don't know what she give for hers,

probably $400,000, $450,000, but, you know.

MR. STANTON: You don't have a problem with a half-million-dollar house, you just

have a problem with the $250,000 house?

MR. MELVIN: No. See, now you're making me sound like I'm having something

against the rich people. I don't.

MR. STANTON: I'm just asking.

MR. MELVIN: I'm just -- we moved out there because we liked the school for my

three kids, and I can do what I want. We have, me and my neighbor to the south of me,

we have big 4th of July out there every year. I'm just -- I'm just stating that's what I

thought this meeting was for, for me to state what, you know --

MR. STANTON: It is.

MR. MELVIN: -- instead of me being made out like I want rich people out there, I

don't want rich people out there.

MR. STANTON: You just don't like the density.

MR. MELVIN: But I don't want -- if the $250,000 is what everybody can afford, and

somebody comes in and buys six lots, and then he starts renting them, I mean, you

know, that's -- I'm going to be upset if it turns out the way I think it's going to turn out.

MR. STANTON: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Sir, I -- excuse me. Sorry. I have a question for you.

MR. MELVIN: Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So you -- you lived there before Cottonwood got built.

Correct? There were no houses out there when you first moved out?

MR. MELVIN: Yeah. The only house out there was my neighbor to the south of me,

and there was a little house across from me.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So when all of the houses that you see on the screen behind

me, when those all started getting annexed into the City and built, did you have concerns

then?

MR. MELVIN: No. Because I had Gary there.

MS. GEUEA JONES: You had a buffer?

MR. MELVIN: Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I see.

MR. MELVIN: All this land here.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I guess I'm just curious as to -- and maybe I'm just not getting

it, but I'm curious as to why you think that these homes are going to be desirable to -- in

a way that's different than the other homes. It's the same area. It's, you know --

MR. MELVIN: Well, okay. Like I say, I've been asked this question, so I have seen

it --

MS. GEUEA JONES: -- I don't understand where you're -- uh-huh.

MR. MELVIN: -- and I wanted to speak it, so I'm not going to set up a fight.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm not trying to fight with you. I'm just trying to understand

what it is that is making you think this going to be different.

MR. MELVIN: Because I've seen it happen. Like I say, 31 houses in that little land

is a lot of houses.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. So it's the density?

MR. MELVIN: Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Next person to speak? We

usually only allow people to come up once, sir. I'm sorry. Anyone else to speak on this

case?

MR. NEALE: My name is Kyle Neale; I live at 4301 Cottonwood Drive, which is

directly to the east of this development, so it would literally be in my backyard. I don't -- I

don't have -- I get why it's being developed. You know, it's his land, he can do what he

wants with it. I -- I guess, like the others, I just have a problem with the number of

homes. Thirty-two does seem like an awful lot for a five-acre lot, but I just question, you

know, three years ago, we received a postcard that said they were only going to develop

it into one-acre lots, five one-acre lots. I'd just like to know what happened to that plan,

why did it suddenly turn into 32 cottage style homes or whatever they're proposing. I also

would like to bring up that even if --if this is approved and everything and then all 32 are

developed, I would like to point out that Wyatt Lane is, like the others have said, it's a --

it's a narrow road, it's not a -- it's a county road, so -- but, also, there are no sidewalks on

that road, and the closest bus stop in that area would be at the corner of -- or at the

round-about there at Ballenger and Mexico Gravel. So if there are people that, you know,

if like Mr. Stanton had said, be careful with the word affordable housing. If these are

considered affordable housing or whatever, these people may not also have means to a

vehicle or anything, so they're going to have a long walk for public transit and things like

that -- or public transportation. It's just a concern, you know, I have for them. But, yeah,

again -- one other issue I have is just like others have stated, it's along my property line

and it's just -- they're going to be very close. The back of the houses are essentially

going to be, you know, 50 feet from my back porch or less. So again, that's just my

problem and none of your all's problem, but those are -- those are the issues that I have

wanted to bring up.

MS. GEUEA JONES: So I don't usually jump in line, but I'm going to here. Can you

explain to me why you think that this is -- these homes are likely to be inhabited by

people who need public transportation and don't have vehicles?

MR. NEALE: There -- I mean, I know there are some other people in our -- in my

current neighborhood that they do utilize public transportation and things, so -- but they --

they generally use Ubers or things like that, so -- but, yeah. It's just -- it's just a concern,

you know. It's, like, maybe -- I don't know who is going to move in there. I don't know

what a person's situation is, but if they need to -- access to public transportation, it's

going to be quite a walk. And like I said, Wyatt Lane is -- there's -- there's no sidewalks

along that road or anything, so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: So you know people that live in your neighborhood now that

don't have access to their own vehicle and --

MR. NEALE: Yes. They're -- they're mostly elderly people that either they don't have

access to a vehicle, or they're just -- they can't drive.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And -- okay. I'm just confused as to why you think -- what it

is about this piece of property that --

MR. NEALE: It's mostly -- I mean, I'm not -- like I said, it's any neighborhood. It's

just a concern that I thought should be brought up.

MS. GEUEA JONES: There's no sidewalk, yeah.

MR. NEALE: Yeah. It's just a concern I thought it should be brought up. It's, like,

it's -- it's going to be quite a walk for someone if they don't have a vehicle to -- to get

access to publish transportation.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Wilson?

MS. WILSON: Thank you, and thank you to those who made previous comments. I

only want to make this comment. Columbia is a very interesting city. When I first moved

here, I was married to Sam Robinson; he worked for Ped-Net, and so walkability in this

city is huge. It's one of the main things that we strive for and drive toward, so a lot of

times people are walking because they want to walk, not because they can't afford a

vehicle. I think there's an assumption that I want us to avoid, making that assumption

with what's going on with this zoning request. And so I think we should just stick with

focusing on the zoning request. Although I do, I appreciate your notes.

MR. NEALE: Yeah. And I kind of thought of that after the fact, after I started talking,

that maybe my concerns may be for the next case, not particularly this one, but --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Oh, just to clarify, when Commissioner Stanton was talking about

affordability, he was suggesting that was mis-applied to this -- these are

quarter-million-dollar homes, and probably not for old --

MR. NEALE: Yeah. I was -- I'm not -- I'm not saying that these homes are affordable

or not affordable.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: I -- yeah. Okay. I guess it's a point of information. Am I allowed to

make a comment or should it be --

MS. GEUEA JONES: We usually save them till Commissioner comments, unless

they're specifically about something that this speaker said.

MS. ORTIZ: Okay. Okay. Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. Commissioner Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: And I wish I had asked this of all the neighbors that have spoken,

but I'll ask this of you. If this rezoning proposal was for R-1, is that something that you

would be in support of? Just trying to gauge, you know, where -- where is the density

that those folks are comfortable with?

MR. NEALE: Like I said, I mean, yeah. We received this three years ago where it

said they were going to do that to make it R-1 with five one-acre plots, and I'm not

opposed to that. I think it's just the density thing. It's just -- right now, I look out my

back door and it's a pasture with a barn. And now I'm going to have to -- and possibly, if

this goes through, I'll have to look out at 32 houses, so I mean, I get it. It's not -- if that's

what you guys decide, that's what I have to live with, so --

MR. BRODSKY: And, you know, without going through a full-blown staff analysis, R-

1, we might get 18 houses on this lot without the cottage style standards.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you. Next

speaker on this case?

MR. DINGWELL: Hello. My name is Riley Dingwell; I live at 4250 North Wyatt Lane.

I do live in a double-wide on the backside. Right now, they're saying that they've checked

and evaluated the water, and I guess the sewer systems. As of now, I think a lot of us

out that way all have water issues during daytime runnage, sometimes our water will drop

off -- it's a six-inch water main, so it don't get a lot to everybody out there, especially

during the day use. The sewer system, as far as I know, is from a pumping station that

goes all the way back to -- and I could be wrong -- back to the end of Leisure Drive that

pumps to a lagoon. So to add, like, I guess 32 more units pumping to that lagoon, I'm

wondering kind of what they're going to do with all that because that's owned by the City,

also. And our water. And these guys that are talking about the road, it is right. The road

is dangerous. You've got these concrete trucks or the dump trucks running back and

forth up through there. The salvage yard is back there. He runs up and through there like

crazy. There is nowhere for kids to walk, so if you have a bunch of kids out there, I

mean, we do have some -- a few in the trailer court there, they have to be good enough for

the buses to pick them up there, but when he said something about the R-1, I guess 18

is better than 31. And I just -- a $250,000 home, when they built the other one back

there by Spike and stuff, I think it's Spike Drive there, people weren't very happy about

having to build back and buy them houses. When they bought them, I don't think they

really realized what they were buying next to when they bought next to a trailer court.

So, I mean, a $250,000 home, if it was me buying it, there is no way I'd buy that home,

not with the stuff that's on the far side of it. I wouldn't want to live in a $250,000 home, so

what I see is somebody getting stuck with a bunch of homes and having to rent them.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Seeing none.

Thank you very much.

MR. DINGWELL: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else to speak on this case? Just a quick show of

hands, how many more people are there to speak on this case that haven't spoken yet?

Anyone else who is planning to come up after this speaker? Okay. Thank you.

MR. MURPHY: Good evening, Commissioners. Kevin Murphy with A Civil Group,

office is at 3401 Broadway Business Park Court. I want to address some of the

questions that were asked possibly first.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Could you step a little bit closer to that mic?

MR. MURPHY: Sure.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.

MR. MURPHY: One of the former speakers had inquired about the barbed wire

around the property. This was a rural property where barbed wire is allowed in the county

on rural properties for livestock and whatnot. And when it comes into the City, barbed

wire is not allowed in the City, so the barbed wire will come down. As far as Ms. Ortiz'

question about the mobile home park to the north or 18 lots in there, roughly two

point-three to two-point-five acres, that's a density of seven-and-a-half to seven-point-eight

units per acre versus what we're proposing is roughly six-point-three units per acre. I

would like to go to the picture -- wait. Wait. We don't have to show it, but anyway, it's

25 years ago where a lot of these folks had lived in -- in Deer Ridge and I don't know if

there's other folks in Maryland Heights or Gold Star Farms or whatnot. Twenty-five years

ago, these were all two, five-acre, ten-acre plus lots out here, and now they're enjoying

their environment where it's much more dense than what was out there then. The -- the

cost of land, the cost of building, the cost of everything is requiring smaller lots. I know

Mr. Stanton doesn't like the word affordable. I don't know who can put a number on

affordable, but if anybody is thinking sub $200,000 for a single-family home, that's

unattainable. What I would like to call what we're trying to do here is attainable housing.

Again, if these were R-1 lots, they -- similar to what's in Deer Ridge right now, those -

-those lots are going to -- those houses are going -- similar size houses, fifteen hundred,

six feet -- square feet, are $350,000 to $390,000. So, again, this is more attainable.

What we're trying to do is what the City wants to do, what the County wants to do, what

the State wants to do, that the Nation wants to do is to provide more -- more affordable

housing. The City worked very hard on these standards and we're utilizing in this. And

as far as just a few years ago being four or five one-acre lots, once again, just the cost of

development makes that unattainable in this area to be able to sell a one-acre lot and --

and build a house on it and to get your money back just doesn't work. As far as rental

properties, I checked on the City's customer service website, in Deer Ridge alone, there's

16 rental homes, rental licenses. I'm jumping around here trying to read my scribbling as

I was going on here, but we have a known price point here. You had asked about that,

Commissioner Williams. Again, that goes back to what -- what we can provide here

versus if we did bigger lots, what they're costing now. But these aren't going to affect

property values in the adjoining neighborhoods, and again, the last speaker -- one last

thing. One of the last speakers had spoken about the City sewer. This is not going to

the lagoon that feeds the mobile home park. This is connecting the City sewer which has

been determined by City utilities as more than enough capacity to serve this. As far as

the water is concerned, again, I think the low-pressure issue is the water line within the

private mobile home park and not the public line that we will be tying into, as far as that,

so there's a neck down that feeds that as that mobile home park is 40, 50 years old, and

doesn't quite meet today's standards. But that's all I have. If anybody had any

questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I'm not a real estate agent, but --

MR. MURPHY: Neither am I.

MR. STANTON: -- if I was determining the property value, don't I take a comp of

surrounding properties?

MR. MURPHY: Similar properties.

MR. STANTON: So if this is developed and I'm building $300,000 homes, that is part

of the calculation of my property if I live around this area. So I'm not a real estate agent,

but I'm thinking a property value would probably go up; right -- in theory?

MR. MURPHY: As far as I know of it, that is part of the computation in that, but the

other thing is comparable properties, so they would look at comparable house sizes,

comparable lot sizes, and things of that nature. But they do look at the overall picture of

the area, as well, and you're right.

MR. STANTON: But once --

MR. MURPHY: Once again, this comes up many, many times, and I -- I know of

no development that has ever brought property values down in this town as everybody

says that's going to happen, that's going to happen. I wish somebody would really dig

into that, and if I had the time, I would do it, but nobody is paying me to do that, and I've

got my own bills to pay. But I guarantee that in my experience, that has never happened

in this town.

MR. STANTON: Thank you.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Gebhardt had said that the process here was to do the -- you

go through the approvals and then -- and then sell the lots to a developer. And so

although I understand what the comps were that were shown on the screen, there's no

way for you to provide any certainty of what's going to go on these plots Correct?

MR. MURPHY: First of all, Adam -- Adam is taking a big risk and spending a lot of

money to take the legwork out. There are a lot of developers that don't want to go

through this hassle. They don't -- you know, he's taking all that risk, and if he can hand

them something -- construction plans, the approval for this, it's a golden ticket. He's

handing a golden ticket to somebody and these -- these are being currently being built

around town, and these are the prices they're getting, and I don't see anything getting any

less expensive. I'm sorry. I want to talk about tariffs and the cost of lumber and the cost

of cement and everything from other countries, it's --it's -- we're lucky if it's not going to

get worse.

MR. WILLIAMS: I guess my point is that --

MR. MURPHY: But housing is needed, needed, needed.

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand. My point is just that you could hand someone a plot

full of lots, but you could build a $500,000 home with all of the best accoutrements on

that lot, or you could build a bare bones house on that lot, which costs something less,

and I won't speculate what that would be, and all I'm saying is that it's difficult, as it's

been to me before by developers when I've asked what's going to go here if we zone it this

way, and I get told I can't tell you what it's going to be because it could change. And so I

just want to say the only thing we can be certain of is, if we approve the R-2 and then we

approve the plot, we can be certain that there is going to be certain lot sizes on this piece

of land. We can't say what is going to go there and how well it's going to sell. And so I

say that both to you and to others, again, these could be $500,000 premium small

houses that people buy because they want to live outside of the city. They could be

much lower cost that attract a different buyer. They could be built and not sell, and they

can become a bunch of rental properties, and there is no way for any of us to know what

that is. And so I just am saying that broadly to everyone is that we can't assume what

that outcome is going to be, and we can't, with any certainty -- just like we can't certainly

say these are all going to be houses that attract, that are, you know, $150,000 if you can

build that -- I don't know. But we can't say that they won't be this other thing either. And

so I'm just -- the question was really designed to try to elicit that point, and I apologize,

maybe I should have said it more directly, but there is no certainty about what this is

going to be, and that applies both to the position of the person -- of the petitioner, and it

applies to those who are sitting here and being concerned. And so that's my comment.

MR. MURPHY: Commissioner Williams, if I may interject on that. I can guarantee

that there will be no house that can in any possible way go in on this for less than

$250,000. That is just a fact of life that it is not. And I can also guarantee there is no

house that's going to be $500,000 that's going to be built on -- on these type of lots. I

can guarantee you that.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Any other --

MR. MURPHY: But anyone can guarantee that. You may ask Mr. Arey, the

realtor, that deals with -- yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions, Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: Just to clarify a point that I must have missed earlier regarding the

sidewalk question that someone brought up. Now looking at this plat, if I can read it

property, it looks like there's 585 feet of frontage on Wyatt?

MR. MURPHY: Correct.

MR. WALTERS: Now with this -- and then all this, the City requires sidewalks. But

does sidewalk go -- be deferred until that Wyatt was improved, or would the sidewalks go

in as the lots are built?

MS. GEUEA JONES: We'll probably get to that in the next case.

MR. WALTERS: In the next part. Okay. All right.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. Unless

there is somebody else? No? Thank you very much.

MR. MURPHY: Thanks, folks.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next person. I think we have one more to come up.

MR. CHERRINGTON: Hello. Dave Cherrington; I'm also with A Civil Group. I knew

the plans for all of this, but aside from the work aspect of it, just looking around in here,

I'm one of, if not the youngest person in here, and I am looking to own a home here in the

foreseeable future, hopefully. But, you know, like Kevin said, with everything, it just --

everything just keeps going up, and it's harder and harder to buy. I don't want to live in

the middle of the city. I don't want to -- you know, I don't want to spend $1 million

because I can't -- I can't afford that. But with some of the houses that we showed that

were around the $250,000 mark, that's kind of where my mark is, and we talked a lot

about how, you know, the 50-year-old and up, you know, like this would speak to them,

but it would also speak to people of my age where, you know, I'm done with school, but

I'm also a functioning member of society where I'm trying to get a start on life and, you

know, I don't necessarily need a huge yard yet, and I can't afford a huge yard yet, but this

is a type of development that I think that we're really lacking here in town, but also

speaks to a lot of people who may not necessarily come to these meetings hardly ever,

so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Seeing none.

MS. ORTIZ: I don’t know about --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Ms. Ortiz, go ahead.

MS. ORTIZ: I don't know about youngest, but --

MR. CHERRINGTON: One of.

MS. ORTIZ: Just kidding. Sorry.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anybody else? Thank you very much for being

here tonight. Last call. Anyone else who wants to speak on this case. Seeing none,

we'll close public comment on the zoning question.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Again, as a reminder for my fellow Commissioners, this is

zoning. We'll talk about the actual layout and platting in the next case. Any

Commissioner comments? Commission Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: Oh. No.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MS. ORTIZ: Yeah. Sorry.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Sorry. I thought you had said you had a comment earlier.

MS. ORTIZ: Oh, I did. I did have a comment. I just appreciated the comment about

public transit. I love to hear that come up in conversations about housing. I think that's

important. But, like my fellow Commissioners have said, this might be construed as

affordable, but attainable might be a better word because I think the folks that are looking

at moving to this area are not the folks that are relying on public transportation due to

their income. If anything, it would be more hobby or like Commissioner Wilson said, out

of like sport or recreation. I appreciated that that was brought up, though, in this

conversation. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I'm going to give you a HUD form of what affordable is. Affordable is

30 percent of your income on your housing expenses. It doesn't matter income, 30

percent of that makes -- is what you're afford -- what you can afford. So whatever these

houses are, affordability depends on 30 percent of your income. That's the definition of

affordable. It's a scale. It doesn't mean Section 8, doesn't mean rich, doesn't mean poor.

It means 30 percent of your income is what you should be spending on your living

expenses. Anything -- a lot of us live above 30 percent. That's called house cost burden,

but 30 percent of your income is affordable to you. That's the definition of affordable

housing.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other Commissioner comments? Commissioner

Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: Just want to express my support for this rezoning to R-2. There is

a fair amount of R-2 zoning to the south and southwest of this property along Ballenger

primarily, so I don't see this as a single-family home exclusive area. But this has been

informative for me as a Commissioner, as we are going through these cottage

development standards that we want to, you know, I think encourage these types of

developments, and maybe we need to give some more thought to not only making these

developments -- I don't want to say easier for the developers, but that, you know, they

don't have to go through this multi-step process and it's more of an administrative

function. But we probably need to give some -- some thought to how we make these

more palatable to existing neighbors because there seems to be quite a bit of conflict

around that. And I will note, being a little cheeky here, but one thing I have not heard

anyone say is that more variety of housing types would make this more palatable for

folks.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Ms. Loe had --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, sorry. Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: That comment may come up when we talk about the plan versus the

zoning, so let's see.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MS. LOE: A couple comments. First, I appreciated the comment on sidewalks

because I thought of that when I was reviewing R-2 zoning for this, because you're

bringing more residents to a neighborhood, and one of the things I think about naturally

regardless of income level is how they're connected to the rest of the community. And I

agree that Wyatt Lane is challenging for pedestrians and finding your way to public

transportation. So for me that was actually a mark in the negative column for putting a

higher density project on this -- at this location. That said, this project is zoned R-S in

County, and R-S does allow a 7,000 lot for single family, so this could be rezoned, or it

could be platted without rezoning. It also -- R-S in the county with a conditional use

permit, allows for two-family dwellings. So you could potentially achieve a comparable

density in the County with a conditional use. So I understand we're on the border, and

we have County coming up against City, but I -- I do think there is some comparability,

and this plat has not been developed to the ability it is currently zoned to, and this

request is asking to go one step further, which I don't feel is a reach beyond where it is

now. So I do think I support the zoning.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton, and then Commissioner Williams.

MR. STANTON: Mr. Gebhardt has been the pioneer on several projects concerning

cottage developments. We talk about it here. We talk about density. I'm sorry he has

to go through this, but he's got to be the pioneer and take the shots, the first shots until

we -- you know, till this becomes more common. But this is what urban planners, City

planners are looking to do. We have to -- the cost and all that stuff are causing

developers and I, too, pour commercial concrete all day, every day. Don't let the sweater

fool you. So there's got to be a point where we walk the walk and talk the talk, and this

is where we are. I feel that if you put this anywhere, it was going to be a problem

because it's new, it's provocative, it's all of that, that's why we're talking about it in work

session now. This is new to us in America, and Europe and everywhere else in the

world, they do this all the time. This is new to us here. And I plan to support it just for

the fact that he gave it a shot, and, you know, we'll have to see if he -- what I heard from

the presentations, that these will be sold. If he makes me a liar, then the next time Mr.

Gebhardt comes up here with a cottage, I'm going to say heck, no, because you didn't --

you didn't pioneer this and make this what you said. And I will look him in his eye and I

will hold him accountable for everything I give him the grace to try to develop, and if he

lies to me, then he won't have my vote the next time he comes up here with a cottage

development. That's part of being a pioneer. This is where the world is -- we have to --

we have to be more dense. Yes, I understand it's on the edge of the county. I get it. I

understand that the neighbors -- and that's the reason why I say watch that word

affordable housing. It just creates a whole other conversation that wasn't even necessary

in this -- in this discussion, because affordability is a formula, and I just told you that

formula, and it really -- it really boils down to how much I can build for X amount of price

point and that's just the reality of where we're at. So good luck, Mr. Gebhardt, and keep

taking these bullets, and maybe this will pass, maybe it won't. I don't know. But we

need to keep walking the walk and talking the talk.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: I think that -- I'm planning to support it, and the plot, to me, is -- I

understand we have to discuss that, but, as I understand it, with the R-2, you could build

the same amount of houses, you just change the layout so -- and the density issue is

really being decided here. It's just a matter of whether you put the walls together or

whether you keep them separated and put grass in between is is really the second

question. So, you know, I agree this is -- this is the vision that we've set out is to create

the opportunity for more people to own homes and -- or to just live in homes in the city.

And so I understand and I empathize and in some way regret always that -- that it

creates friction and discomfort for existing property owners. I completely understand,

especially those who -- who look out on this property why they would not want something

other than what is here or something that's less dense. I think everyone enjoys looking

out towards nature. So it's certainly not without a degree of appreciation and empathy for

-- for those who live nearby. But again, there is no way of us looking at this and saying

this is going to be a problem. All we know is that there is going to be a certain number of

houses, yet I can't say in good conscience that that number of houses is going to create

problems. So I intend to vote to approve.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: Yeah. I also intend to support this. I think that given the zoning of

property surrounding, especially the fact that there is manufactured homes just north that

there are people here from that community that live in a dense community already, I think

that really sells it for me that it's working how it is now in that area, given the density, and

they don't think it would be inappropriate to have a higher density area there, as well.

Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: If my colleagues do not have any other questions, I'd like to

entertain a motion, Madam Chair.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I have something else. I do. Is that okay?

MR. STANTON: Oh, all right, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Appreciate it. I -- I think that the unknown is

scary, and I think that change is scary. And I understand that folks moved out to this

part of the county because they didn't want neighbors, essentially. I get that. I think in

the staff report, we heard that several of these lots were eight-acre lots or more. But the

way of life has changed, and I personally am disturbed by the assumptions that a lot of

people are making, and I'm not going to assign motivations to those because that would

be just as assumptive on my part. But I -- I think that folks are thinking in worst case

scenario, and they aren't considering a couple of important factors, one, that over the last

I would say probably 20 years, maybe 25, this area has already grown in density

significantly, and that a lot of those homes are probably the same level of lot coverage

that you're going to see with cottage. They're very large homes on minimal size lots. A

lot of those homes are in the 1,500 to 1,600 square foot range, too, on lots that are, you

know, minimal setbacks around them. So I'm not sure how we get to this is the one that

people are upset about, especially if you look at some of the spacing of the homes on

Leisure, like, those are close together on small lots. That's a community. You can tell.

You all talk to each other. So I'm struggling to see how we get to this is going to be

something different. And to Commissioner Williams' point, even if cottage doesn't get

approved, even if, for some reason, the plat doesn't get approved, if this is R-2 or R-1,

you're going to see similar levels of density to what they're wanting in cottage, because

this is going to be built out to the maximum of whatever it can be because we are in

desperate need of housing in our city, and this area of the city is going -- or this area of

the county is likely going to get annexed. If you look at the map, we've already gotten to

a point where we're creating islands. Those are likely to get absorbed. And I think doing

it in a way that is forward-thinking and in small chunks and cautious is the way to go, and

this is a relatively small chunk and cautious, and a way to see does this work. So I

would just -- I would just say that I think that for those of you that are here tonight that are

worried about what is going to happen here, and who may move in here, you can't control

who your neighbors are ever. You can't control who your neighbors are if you move into a

new place, and can meet all of them because those folks are going to move. I -- I think

that rather than coming at this from a viewpoint of worst-case scenario, it would behoove

us all as in our lives we see change, to think about what's the best-case scenario. Who

could move in here that we might actually like, and try to come at it from -- from that

viewpoint, and I -- again, I'm trying really hard not to attribute motivation to some of the

things that I've heard, but I think that people are making assumptions about who their new

neighbors are going to be in ways that are harmful to everyone involved, and would

encourage you to think about who the best person could be that would move in there,

who you would like to see move in there, and how would you feel about 32 houses if it's,

you know, your ideal neighbor, you know, someone who goes to church with you or

something. But that's -- that's all. And I know I don't usually pontificate like this, but I

think it's worth saying because I was disturbed by some of the tone tonight, and not from

just any one person, it was several. Anyone else? Commissioner Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: Just a comment to the City staff which can be answered or not

answered. It just seemed like there was a lot of concern about the -- just the road itself.

I don't -- I didn't notice in the -- the written report maybe mentioned it orally about whether

a traffic study was conducted or what have you. But assuming that this all moves

through, it seems like there has been a universal concern about that road and its current

condition, and adding additional traffic to it on a daily basis, which would only have one

direction to go, which is south. So, you know, if you're leaving the neighborhood or

coming in, so to the extent that can be forwarded on as a concern within the relevant City

departments, I think it's worth -- worth raising.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Madam Chair, I would like to entertain a motion --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please.

MR. STANTON: -- if my colleagues are done with the questions. As it relates to

Case 86-2025, 4100 North Wyatt Lane permanent zoning, I move to approve the

permanent zoning request to R-2 zoning district upon annexation.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a second?

MS. ORTIZ: I second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by

Commissioner Ortiz. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Williams, when you're ready, may we have a roll call?

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes” is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters, Mr. Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea

Jones, Mr. Williams, Ms. Loe. Motion carries 9-0.

MR. WILLIAMS: Nine yeses and zero nos.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City

Council. For the platting action on the same property.

Move to approve the permanent zoning request to R-2 zoning district upon

annexation.

9 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Williams, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

Yes:

Case # 87-2025

A request by A Civil Group (agent), on behalf of Adam Kopriva (owner), for

approval of a 32-lot preliminary plat of County R-S zoned property, to be

known as Wyatt Acres. Concurrent requests seeking approval of

permanent zoning (Case # 86-2025) and annexation of the property into

the corporate limits under review. City Council approval of the permanent

zoning and annexation, as well as, Board of Adjustment approval to use

“cottage” optional dimensional standards are required prior to final City

Council approval of the preliminary plat. This matter is sought to be

approved such that the future development of the site under the proposed

R-2 designation has been illustrated. The approximately 5.05-acre subject

site is located about 200 feet northeast of the intersection of Mule Deer

Drive and North Wyatt Lane, and includes the address 4100 North Wyatt

Lane.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?

Staff report was given by Mr. David Kunz of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Wyatt Acres subject

to:

(1) Approval of permanent zoning to R-2 and annexation of the 5.05 acres into the

City, and

(2) Board of Adjustment approval of the "cottage" optional dimensional standards.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my

fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Any questions for staff? Commissioner

Loe?

MS. LOE: Question on the plat. The one that's attached to the documents we have

does not show the 20-foot building setback. Were there any other differences between

the material you're presenting and what we were provided with for review?

MR. KUNZ: I believe the building lines being marked as 20 feet is a difference. The

three notes that I referenced at the beginning may also be a difference, notes 12, 13, 14,

those are all the same. And it may not stub up exactly to the north right to the property

line. There might be a nine-foot buffer of right-of-way. We discussed with Public Works

and Building and Site Development, and it definitely is considered something that could

be a feasible connection in the future; therefore, it needs to stub up to the property line.

MS. LOE: Thank you.

MR. KUNZ: Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Yeah. This particular case brought up the issue of the parking, of

not having any parking on either side of the streets and having to accommodate cars for

each house within the driveway or garage -- and/or garage. It may not happen very often,

but I can see this -- and I understand the necessity because of the fire access, but -- and

it may not happen very often, but in this case, there is a personal connection because

my brother lives in a development very like this, and on holidays, he cannot have

company come and park. And so in some of these proposals, we have seen that there

have been extra lots or extra space for guest parking, but this one does not have that.

Again, I understand exactly why, but I'm just saying that will have to be a consequence

explained to the buyers, and I don't know if the applicants considered any other solutions.

MR. KUNZ: Sorry. Is the question what the applicant intends to provide for parking

on the site, or was it a comment of how it could be a problem, I suppose?

MS. PLACIER: Well, how it could be a problem, and if any solution to the problem

had been considered?]

MR. KUNZ: I can't say we discussed the idea of dedicating a particular lot or

something along those lines for the sake of guest parking. My understanding is that if a

garage is to be supplied for the site and they're building a driveway to the garage and

tandem parking is permitted, it would be reasonable for all four cars to be parked within

this site, and that's if they're building a garage and that's what is implied, the intent is,

with the building line. But that -- yeah. If they're only required to provide two parking

spots, and guest parking isn't considered in the cottage standards, then perhaps that's a,

you know, a shortcoming of those more than anything else.

MS. PLACIER: Maybe that's just life.

MR. KUNZ: Maybe.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I have a quick question and then I know Commissioner

Williams does. Who controls Wyatt? Is that City or County?

MR. KUNZ: County maintained, I believe.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MR. KUNZ: Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Yes. Maintained is the word I was looking

for, not control.

MR. KUNZ: Glad I could help.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: What is -- just help me out, please. What's the minimum,

practically speaking, from math, the smallest R-1 lot size, what is the minimum depth

that that property could have?

MR. KUNZ: I mean, it needs to be 7,000 square feet, if it has 60 feet of width, I think

that's like 115 or so feet of depth.

MR. WILLIAMS: But it could be wider, so it could have less --

MR. KUNZ: It could. Oh, what's the minimum depth?

MR. WILLIAMS: The minimum depth?

MR. KUNZ: Not to be too esoteric, but, like, zero, if you had 7,000.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay.

MR. KUNZ: But, yeah. I don't really know. Sorry.

MR. ZENNER: In order to create a buildable lot in the R-1 zoning district, you have

to take a 25-foot front yard setback, 25-foot rear yard setback, so that's going to take 50

feet out of a dimensional lot, and then 12 feet combined for your side yards. So let's just

for instance say you're dealing with a 40 -- a 90-foot-deep lot, 50 feet out of that gives you

a 40 by -- and it's 60 feet, take 12 off of that, a 40 by 42 building envelope at that point.

That's a sizable building envelope for a footprint, but that would be a 90 -- and that would

probably be under 7,000 square feet, though. So your lot width is going to grow

significantly.

MR. KUNZ: You would need at least more than 50 feet of depth to have any sort of

structure at all.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right. Well, the rear yard setback is the lesser of 25 percent of the

lot, or 25 feet, so you could have a lesser. So it could be smaller than 25 feet, which was

-- these are my follow-up question, which is practically speaking, how many R-1 lots have

-- and I understand that this probably seems unrelated, but it does -- it's related in my

mind. The -- as-built, to your knowledge, how frequent is it that you have less than 25

feet of a setback behind a house to the lot edge?

MR. ZENNER: In 16 years of reviewing development plans with the City of Columbia,

it is very, very uncommon. The ability for one to be able to grade from the foundation

back to the rear property line to a rear yard swale normally necessitates a lot that's

probably no less than 100 feet deep, and I think that that will be illustrated as we request

our design consultants to evaluate the cottage standards, and that is one reason why we

have based all of our dimensional requirements for those that we are presenting

discussing on a 100-foot deep lot, generally, as the optimal. I have also heard that

tangentially as we have discussed the cottage lot standard amendment that we are

working on as being a necessity. A 90-foot-deep lot, depending on the conditions, may

not work, or shallower. And so I think what you will see is a -- is a more traditional 70 by

100 if you're going to go with a 7,000 square foot lot, so 70 feet width by 100 feet deep.

MR. WILLIAMS: So then you would end up with a 25-foot minimum?

MR. ZENNER: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay.

MR. ZENNER: And again, in 16 years of reviewing plans with the City, I have not

seen, with the exception of probably planned districts, lot depths that are much less.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. And the -- what we're talking about here is a ten-foot setoff

In the rear. Correct?

MR. ZENNER: On the -- for a cottage lot, if approved by the Board with the optional

dimensional standards, yes. It would be a ten-foot rear yard, but even with that, you're

not seeing cottage lots that are going to the Board of Adjustment that are much less than

100 feet in depth.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm just looking -- based on the proposal here, isn't it proposing ten

feet, or is that just outlining what the --

MR. KUNZ: That's the utility easement. The building line is at 20 feet, or are you

saying for the rear setback?

MR. WILLIAMS: The rear setback?

MR. KUNZ: Yeah. That would be ten, yeah.

MR. ZENNER: It follows --

MR. WILLIAMS: The proposal for the plot is that these homes would be -- I mean, I

know the homes aren't on the plot, but it will at least be allowed to put it within ten feet of

the rear.

MR. KUNZ: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ZENNER: And the Board of Adjustment, just for purposes of clarification again,

being the liaison to the Board and taking every cottage standard proposal that has gone

through, the Board of Adjustment is a public hearing process. So the residents that are

here that surround this development that would like to come to the Board of Adjustment,

they will get public notice just like they did for this. The Board of Adjustment members

are very attuned, like this body, to the impacts associated with something that is being

introduced in a built environment. And I can tell you from my own personal experience in

dealing with about a half of dozen of these, the Board has assessed particular enhanced

rear-yard setbacks in order to mitigate the potential impact. I cannot guarantee that they

would do that in this instance, and I cannot guarantee that it would go to a standard 25

-foot rear yard, but I can probably speak to the fact that that will be something that will be

considered by them.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. Thank you. We

will go to public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: If any members of the public would like to come and speak on

this case, please step forward. State your name and address for the record. We do six

minutes for the applicant and groups, and three minutes for individuals.

MR. GEBHARDT: Good evening. Jay Gebhardt with A Civil Group, 3401 Broadway

Business Park Court. And if I could get the PowerPoint back up, I would appreciate it,

because I don't know how to do it. So I'm just going to assume you're going to ask

questions of things that you have for me, but things that I've been hearing is -- is there

was a question about sidewalks. Yes, they will be built with the development, even

across the common area lot along Wyatt Lane and connect to the existing sidewalk on

the south end of this property. So there will be a continuous sidewalk on Wyatt to Mule -

- Mule Drive -- Mule -- whatever the name of that street is just to the south of us. And

the, you know, there is a fundamental conflict between the UDC and the IFC, and that is

if you take a 50-foot right-of-way street, you know, a normal residential street 28 feet wide

that allows parking on both sides, you don't have the 20-foot clear lane that's required. In

this case, we're asking to use the access street standards in, you know, not having

parking on -- on either side of the street. I knew that would be a concern, so part of the

reason is I put this little -- Adam put this little drawing together is to illustrate how cars

could park. So the bottom area is a 1,200-square-foot home with a two-car garage, and

showing four cars parked. And the one-car garage option on the north side, I've gone

ahead and made the driveway wide enough so that you could have three, and we've done

several of these out in the county for C&C Construction, and it's very popular to have that

extra-wide driveway for cars just so you don't have to park behind your wife's car and have

to move it in a tandem situation all the time. And so the question, you know, can we --

we can't park on the street, so where are the people going to park? They're going to have

to park in the -- in the driveways. And even if the fire department hadn't required this 20

-foot clear lane, I want to illustrate in this drawing that by the time you put -- on a 40-foot

lot, you put two houses, two driveways, there is not 23 feet of curb left to parallel park

between. So fundamentally, cottage lots can't have on-street parking. Now in our case,

on our layout, we have one street on the south that has the -- has the detention pond on

it with no home, so theoretically, we could have had parking there, but with the fire

department asking for that 20-foot clear lane, we've -- we've just agreed, okay, there won't

be any parking. But as you guys move forward with looking at the standards of these

things, parking is something you're going to need to address because even if this was a

28-foot street, or a 32-foot-wide street, we wouldn't be able to put parking because of the

driveways. So I just wanted to bring that up and talk about the sidewalks, but if you guys

have any other specific questions, you've seen the PowerPoint, I can show other things or

answer questions for you guys.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: Could -- oh, good, the plot is up, although it's a little hard to see

from this vantage point. But on Lots 9 through 14, which I believe would -- which are at

the end of the street on the north on the --

MR. GEBHARDT: Yeah. It's on the T.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah. It's hard to tell, but it looks to me like those would be

abutting directly the properties on Cottonwood -- the existing properties on Cottonwood

Drive.

MR. GEBHARDT: They would.

MR. WILLIAMS: And I will tell you that I have a lot of concern about permitting a

house to be built with a ten-foot setoff to an existing R-1 property.

MR. GEBHARDT: Why is that different than the ten-foot setoff for an internal lot in

this subdivision?

MR. WILLIAMS: Because those people are choosing to buy a house that's a cottage

lot and be neighboring a cottage lot, but people who have purchased an R-1 lot

presumably would have anticipated that they would have at least on the other side of

them a setoff that would be equivalent to an R-1 lot.

MR. GEBHARDT: Okay. Mr. Williams, I -- if the Board of Adjustment, as Pat

indicated, decides that that needs to be a larger setback, that, you know, the negative of

that is is the house will get smaller. It probably would be a two-story home instead of a

single-story home just because the footprint is going to get smaller. So, you know, we've

heard tonight a lot of concern about the size of these homes, the cost of these homes,

living next to these homes. I mean, having a two-story house behind you may be -- that's

25 feet away -- may be is as imposing as having a single-story home that's 15. And in

my drawings, you know, I show -- I show the ten-foot rear yard, and that back part of that

-- I probably should have made that gray, but that's just showing a patio. So the house

itself is actually, you know, not right up to that, and that's a 1,200-square-foot home.

And I -- that's like 1,200-square-foot footprint for a single family -- or a single-story home.

So if it's a two-story, it's going to be smaller and be further away, more than likely from

the rear yard. But I understand your -- your concern, but that is the standard, so that's

what we were --

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, right. But there's a way of redesigning this that would not

require putting lots. You could expand Bush Drive instead of -- you would lose some lots,

but you wouldn't be proposing putting -- and you're probably more than ten feet away from

me right now. So I do have a lot of concern about that level of encroachment on an

existing R-1 property, and I'm probably, unless you can convince me otherwise, not going

to vote in favor of this unless -- if I'm -- I'm not going to rely on the Board of Adjustment for

that. So unless you can give me some comfort, otherwise that -- because again, you're

not developing it --

MR. GEBHARDT: Right.

MR. WILLIAMS: -- so once it's handed off, it could be -- I mean, without any other

restrictions listed on here, you know, on the plot, or an adjustment to the plot design,

there is nothing preventing a future developer from putting a house that close to the edge

of an existing R-1.

MR. GEBHARDT: Yes. I can't argue with that, and I can't provide you any comfort

and be able to vote yes for this, but, you know, Mr. Williams, it is the standard that is

adopted. And if the standard isn't satisfactory, then I suggest you guys look at changing

that standard when you have a cottage that abuts an R-1. But as Pat Zenner was

indicating, you know, these lots are 100 feet deep. They have a 20-foot setback in the

front because of the garage. I just don't believe that you're going to see these homes

being built from front building line to rear building line. They're just not going to be that

deep. And we are trying to provide some outdoor space for people to have some yard,

some patio area, things of that nature, so --

MR. WILLIAMS: And then the other property is that the Lot 27, since it's going to be

a side yard, that would only require -- and that -- that would be true, I will grant you,

whether it was R-1, R-2, in a normal context, the side yard setoff is still six feet. But

again, the way the plot is designed, they still have to give some consideration to the

property owner that's abutting it, and I recognize that property is sort of facing at an angle

to there, but, again, I find that concerning. And the last one -- point I'll raise, which is

probably moot given my other points, is on Lot 30, the lagoon -- I assume that that was --

is no longer an active lagoon, or is it?

MR. GEBHARDT: The existing house is on that lagoon. It's not connected to City

sewer. And when this gets developed, that -- the City sewer will be extended and the

house will be put on City sewer and the lagoon will be removed.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is it typical to build real estate on top of a lot that had a lagoon on

it?

MR. GEBHARDT: It's -- so what will happen is that lagoon will be excavated and any

unsuitable fill or material there will be excavated and removed, and then adequate fill clay,

whatever, will be put in and compacted, tested, and then the home will be built on it, so

it's more frequent -- that happens more frequently than you would think. And even we

take out farm ponds quite a bit when we are doing development and it's the same -- same

situation.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Mr. Gebhardt, thank you for sharing the diagrams of parking. That is one

of my questions after reading the report. As I stated earlier, the plan we received did not

have the 20-foot building line setback indicated, so my understanding was buildings could

still be set up to the ten-foot setback, which would -- provided very little possibility for

parking. Understanding the 20-foot setback will be included in the plan definitely

alleviates some concern about parking provided for the homes. However, I did still wonder

about the question Commissioner Placier raised regarding guest parking, and I'm also

wondering about moving vans, that type of parking, especially since there's no parking on

Wyatt and there's no access to through streets which do have parking on them. So what

accommodation has been made for other vehicles that will just be necessary?

MR. GEBHARDT: You know, there's what's being said is there would be no parking

on there, but if there's a Super Bowl party at one of these homes, there's going to be

people parked on the street. That's just going to happen. There is not going to

enforcement of this thing. I've already pointed out that you can't park between the

driveways, so the only street that you could do that on would be, you know, the south

street that abuts the detention pond. So no -- could we widen that street out four feet and

put some additional parking on that? Yeah. But part of the -- I thought part of the goal of

this was to keep costs down, and to lose a lot to create a parking lot or widen streets

beyond what's required by the Code just seems wrong, especially when it's all being

generated by the fire department wanting this 20-foot clear lane, which they don't have on

any residential street in any neighborhood, because you can park on both sides. If you

take the existing neighborhood to the east, it's a 28-foot street. You've got parking on

both sides. You take 16 feet out of that, you don't have 20 feet left, so it's -- they don't

have their clear lane on any public street. And then I said that it's a fundamental problem

with the Code, the two codes not aligning. So it's come to light on this one because

they're using the access street, but I just want to point out that we're not -- we're not

trying to accommodate additional parking on this. I mean, I would assume that most of

these people will have two cars parked in the garage, and if they have guests, they'll park

in the -- in the driveway. If they have more than two guests, they may have to arrange

with the neighbor to park in their driveway or take the risk of getting a ticket and park on

the street, but that's -- that's what we're proposing, Sara.

MS. LOE: So what about delivery trucks or vans that are longer than 20 feet? They

can't do deliveries to this neighborhood?

MR. GEBHARDT: They don't -- on my experience, it's UPS doesn't park in the

parking --

MS. LOE: Longer than a UPS delivery. It usually takes a couple of hours to unpack

a van.

MR. GEBHARDT: Okay. You're talking about moving vans?

MS. LOE: A moving van, yeah.

MR. GEBHARDT: All right. I mean, isn't that a problem in every residential

neighborhood?

MS. LOE: I had a semi-trailer. My street is wide enough that they left it for a couple

of days, and it wasn't a problem, but that could not happen here.

MR. GEBHARDT: Right.

MS. LOE: Yeah.

MR. GEBHARDT: It couldn't happen on any access street. Right? You've got 24

feet. Even with parking on one side, you wouldn't be able to accommodate a semi-truck

parked there in 24 feet. It needs to be a one-way traffic for sure.

MS. LOE: So maybe this is not the best application of an access street. I mean,

was that an exception that was asked for due to the length of the street?

MR. ZENNER: It's a permissible option given the ADTs that are being generated in

the development. It is -- as Mr. Gebhardt has pointed out, that is how the Code is

written.

MS. LOE: I understand.

MR. ZENNER: And I believe the concerns that you are expressing, Ms. Loe, are

ones that are accepted exceptions under circumstances that result in temporary

inconvenience in our subdivisions as a part of daily living. I think it becomes an issue if it

is parked there for extended periods of time, blocking the ability of the fire service which

then would have to be the ones to act upon that. The Code is what the Code says, and

therefore what Mr. Gebhardt is presenting here is Code compliant. And we have asked

that the note be placed on the plat, because that is what the fire service needs. The

project will be signed accordingly that there is no parking on either side of the street. But

in any instance, if you have to access your own personal property to offload a moving van

to move in, that's a temporary action that I think is acceptable even though it is not in

direct conformance with how the Code is written because it is a reality.

MS. LOE: So, I mean, I do understand there's Code compliance, but I -- I do take

exception to being backed into some issues, such as not being able to park between

driveways because it's been designed to minimum standards. Whereas I think if you

sharpened your pencil, and did some adjustments, it could be modified to create some

opportunities to better accommodate daily living. And those are what I'm trying to get to

with this discussion.

MR. ZENNER: The widening of the -- the widening of the street, however, is --

MS. LOE: I'm talking about turning some of the lots so we have more than 18 feet

between driveways in some locations, widening the street, perhaps, but one point that

Mr. Gebhardt raised was simply the distance between driveways, and that's due to how

they have laid out the lots. Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for this speaker? Commissioner

Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: Not necessarily to your development here, but we are going

through this process to look at the small-lot developments. And, currently, the way that's

written, if you have a garage, you have to be, you know, 20-foot building setback in the

front. If you don't have a garage, then only ten feet, but that doesn't really leave room for

parking if it's just ten feet. Does that -- does the ten -- allowing ten-foot building lines, lot

lines in the front without a garage, is that something we're even ever going to see?

MR. GEBHARDT: Not until you allow the two required parking spaces to be on the

street.

MR. BRODSKY: Yeah. Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Let's do our best to keep it to this case. I know that's

what's on our mind.

MR. GEBHARDT: One thing I would like just to point out, you know, it -- yes, we

chose 42-foot-wide lots, but in the cottage standard, it could be a 30-foot lot. We're

choosing to do basically a two-car wide driveway to accommodate this parking issue.

And, you know, no builder is going to build something in here that he can't sell. And if he

-- if this is obvious if -- if there's a house without a garage or a house without parking, the

people are going to ask where am I supposed to park, and they're not going to buy the

house. So, I mean, these things, I think can be -- they're more common sense, and I

don't think we have to necessarily knock down the weeds on these things like this.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Thank you very much.

MR. GEBHARDT: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next speaker on this case, please come forward. And I know

you all probably just did this, but could you say your name and address again?

MR. CROW: That's fine. Emery Crow; I live at 4250 North Wyatt Lane there. And I

was just noticing, you know, he said how wide was the lots?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Forty-five feet.

MR. CROW: Thirty-five feet?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Forty-five. Four, five.

MR. CROW: Forty-five feet?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.

MR. KUNZ: Forty-two. Excuse me.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Forty-two to -- yeah.

MR. KUNZ: Forty-two was what most of them are going to be in with.

MR. CROW: That's not even as wide as my trailer lot, and how far apart are the

buildings going to be?

MR. KUNZ: The side yard setback for cottage standards is five feet --

MR. ZENNER: Six feet.

MR. KUNZ: -- so they be -- or six, excuse me. Thank you, Pat. So 12 feet

between.

MR. CROW: Between.

MR. KUNZ: Yeah.

MR. CROW: And I know for our trailers, and my son's trailer burnt not all that long

ago, because of substandard wiring from a previous owner, but anyway, it burnt. And his

trailer was over, you know, what, 35 to 37 feet away from my back door, and I already

know it was so hot, it scorched the whole side of my trailer. To me, being that close is

extremely dangerous for any dwelling. And that -- and that lot is smaller than the one I

live on, and that I -- I can't see fire standard-wise and that, how they can even be that

close, especially with a garage right there. And with today's vehicles, if they've got an

electric vehicle, there's a pretty good chance. I know not everybody likes them. I don't,

but some people do. The -- what does the backyard, you said was how far from the rear -

- from the rear property line on that far side -- the far north side?

MR. WILLIAMS: It's ten feet is what's permissible.

MR. CROW: Ten feet.

MR. WILLIAMS: We don't have a diagram of what the house would actually look like.

MR. CROW: Okay. So, yeah. And this part is on, like, the annexation, also? Was

that this part?

MS. GEUEA JONES: No. We don't actually get to vote on the annexation. That's

City Council.

MR. CROW: Well, it said in here, so I --

MS. GEUEA JONES: I know. It's -- it's confusing. City Council does annexation,

we do everything else.

MR. CROW: Because you brought up about, you know, certain parts being

absorbed into that, you know, and we don't want to be absorbed in there. I know

Suzanne that lives directly on that property line has that -- that property just north of that.

She's got enough health problems and with her family and everything else, she don't need

that hassle and that, but, you know, I think you said you don't deal with that here. But as

far as, you know, people say trailers are dangerous, you know, and because we're so

close. Well, where I live out there on Leisure Drive, it used to be that you had everything

was close like that. Well, they were sold off. Everything is private lots now, they are

double lots. So my nearest neighbor from where -- (inaudible) --

MS. ORTIZ: You need to be in the microphone.

MR. CROW: Okay. Well, I'm sorry. I'm just trying -- but from where this gentleman

over here with the nice haircut, you know, to the other side of the lady over here, you

know it's pretty good ways, you know, in between and that. Well, I'm sorry. I didn't have

any other way to explain. But, you know, to me, you know, having 12 feet in between,

you know, and then between the issues of no space on the main street, you know, trying

to get, like you said, a U-Haul or something up in there to move stuff in, that is quite a

hassle. Well, what if you get all the kids out there and they end up playing in the street

and everything else and all this, we don't know who's going to move in there. You know,

like you said, we have no idea. So, I mean, it doesn't make sense with as many as

they're wanting to put on that property. And if there was way less or a possibility, but

does it mean I still want them there? No. But, to me, it looks like a fire hazard at 12 feet

apart knowing that even with the trailers, you know, being over 30 feet apart still scorched

my trees and everything on the backside of my lot and all my siding on the backside, and

we had to sit there with a hose and wet the whole backside of my property to keep it from

burning while they were putting the other one out. You know, so I would like for you all to

keep that in consideration, you know. These small homes, they may be able to put a lot

of them in there, but is it really safe?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Seeing -- oh.

Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Thank you for the comments. I would just like to note that that distance

meets the adopted building code and fire code for separation, so --

MR. CROW: Oh, I'm surprised that that's even --

MS. LOE: I understand your concern, but it does meet the accepted standard.

MR. CROW: I just don’t understand, you know. I watch the house burn, and the

flames that any house can put off, and them being this close, even though, you know,

you think it's safe, but what they say, it is not. And I feel sorry for the next-door

neighbors got to deal with their house burning because of the other one. That's where --

you know, what my meaning is.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much for

being here tonight. Next person to speak on this case, please come forward.

MR. MURPHY: Good evening, again. Kevin Murphy, A Civil Group, 3401 Broadway

Business Park Court. I'm just going to go over some notes here. Mr. Williams was

speaking of the setbacks some of those lots that abut the existing -- once again, it's

been brought up by Jay, these are the standards -- the cottage standards that we're

working within. These lots could be 30-foot-wide lots, we're doing 42-foot-wide lots, so

this could be more dense. The -- the purpose of the cottage standards is to allow

density. The -- some of the previously approved cottage lots are very similar or even

smaller lots than these. The tried-and-true model of these, what is working here, what

has worked elsewhere, these size homes with this amount of yard for these price points

is what happens. I don't -- these houses aren't going to be built to that ten-foot setback.

Again, this picture that's showing up here now, even the back porch doesn't quite reach.

That's probably 12 feet off the line. The house is 20 feet off the property line. Now given

the fact that the existing R-1 is behind them, they're built 25 foot plus from the property

line, that same common property line, so we're talking 35 feet or more between these

houses. We're not talking from -- from you and I. But I would just like to say that again.

Ms. Loe brought up the side-yard setbacks, a ten foot, a five foot from the property line is

what the IRC would say. The City of Columbia requires six foot, so you're getting two

more foot there. As far as the parking, this was a one-way street, and there's many

one-way streets in town, no parking, or two-way streets that have no parking on one side

of the street, but there's still houses on that side. Folks temporarily park there. I know

we see on Walnut or on Campus when, you know, kids come to town or are going home,

it is a temporary allowance. I think a point that Jay needs to point out, and I'm not sure

why the fire department insisted that on this on this case where they haven't done it on

other ones, these cottage standards, but on a 32-foot wide street, if you take in eight feet

in Deer Ridge, anyone of those streets, are 32-foot wide, for parking on both sides, eight

feet, that leaves you a 16-foot driving lane. What the -- what the fire department is

requiring of us here is a 20-foot driving lane. If we could park on one side of the street, on

a 24-foot-wide street, we'd have that same 16 foot. So I just don't understand that, but

that's what we're dealt with.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. That's three minutes and --

MR. MURPHY: Thanks so much.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Murphy?

Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: I guess this is more of a comment, but I live in East Campus, and I'm

very familiar with move in and move out. And it is something -- well, and I would want a

no outlet, as well. So -- with a lot of smaller I guess like apartments, I guess, they are,

or houses that are converted into apartments, and it's something that you deal with for

move in and move out, and then you go on with your lives. So I -- I imagine moving into a

cottage home, it's similar to moving into a campus or and East Campus dwelling, so you

live with it, yeah.

MR. MURPHY: And not everyone here is going to be moving on the same day.

MS. ORTIZ: Yeah. But on campus, they do, and we deal with it, and we move on,

so --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much.

Next speaker on this case?

MS. FERGUSON: Denise Ferguson, 5 -- I'm getting so tired, I can hardly speak, but

5401 Axis Court. I would like to point out, I wish that the picture was up there with the

streets so you could see where my house is a little bit. Like I said, I have a very small,

narrow backyard. You can -- you can barely -- we did that on purpose. You know, we

like that. We like to have a small space for ourselves. So, of course, them being close

to us does concern us, but I'm going to tell you the Lagoon -- I see the lagoon out of my

backyard, and maybe that one with the streets would help me. So I see the lagoon, and I

-- I kind of question why a person would build something on a lagoon, but I'm not a

builder, so I didn't question that so much. But what I do kind of question a little bit there

is -- and I didn't get a clear answer from multiple people. I tried to ask this. The

stormwater drain off of Axis Court which, by the way, is a cul-de-sac, and, yes, we have

had to call the fire department and, oh, my goodness, I'm sure glad there was never a

party on that street when we had to call the fire department and ambulance for my

husband's stroke because we couldn't have gotten him in and out of there. So that's

certainly something to look at with the streets. And also for our home with the

stormwater drainage right now off of Axis Court, it goes into -- it drains off of our property

out into that property to the lagoon. When it rains and it pours, there is on that whole

corner, and thank you for bringing that -- that picture up, that whole corner, I don't know

what property numbers those are, but those two will be flooded with water unless -- I'm

not an engineer -- unless an engineer can figure out how to drain that. I understand

there's going to be some kind of drainage at that little pond or something, but I don't know

really how the water will move. I'm a little concerned, to be quite honest, that those

people that might live there, what might happen for them, and I'm not thinking of myself

there. I'm just wondering, and I did, I tried to call and I'm sorry, you and I tried to connect

today, and I was extremely busy. But I don't know what we're going to do about -- again,

it's a density issue. What -- where does the water go? It goes to the lagoon right now,

you know, it kind of drains naturally, I guess. So that's my comment, and it's really kind

of a question that I have still not heard an answer about.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker?

Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: Well, I was going to comment. I'm looking here at the plat and it

does show a culvert that will be extended, if I'm reading this right, along lots 30 and 31,

which is behind you.

MS. FERGUSON: Okay.

MR. WALTERS: And it looks like there is a box culvert perhaps that is at the end of

that drainage easement that you're speaking of, and that routes northward under the

street and it ties in. So, anyway, I think there's -- there's been an attempt to deal with it.

MS. FERGUSON: Okay. And let's just hope so.

MR. WALTERS: Yeah.

MS. FERGUSON: Because, right now, all I'm seeing is really cute houses.

Actually, we did look at some of those houses when we started to think about where we

were going to go, and I just -- I just worry about the folks that are going to move in. But

maybe if they're going to put something in there that works for it, that's wonderful. But,

yeah, I'm telling you on the cul-de-sac, there's not a lot of space for the emergency

vehicles.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for this speaker? Seeing none. Thank

you very much, ma'am.

MS. FERGUSON: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Next speaker on this case? Going once, twice. Okay.

Thank you. We will close public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any Commissioner comments on the platting action? Sorry.

Commissioner Williams, go ahead.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate, Mr. Gebhardt, your frankness as -- just with respect to

my concerns and acknowledging that there are some things you just can't give me the

comfort that I'm -- I'm looking for. I do appreciate that some of the -- my concerns about

the setoff are a product of what exists for the cottage standards currently, and I am a

supporter of the cottage work that we're doing -- the work on the cottage standards that

we're doing, but this -- this particular case does raise some issues for me about how

that's going to be implemented. Now this is -- this is green field, but there might be some

different ways this applies infill, but here, I do think it's important that we consider what

expectation people would have reasonably had when they purchased their property in an

R-1 about how much setoff they would have behind them. And so for that reason, I

wouldn't -- I can't support it with the current plot. I think there are ways that this could be

redone that would eliminate on the buffer where it backs up against an existing R-1

property. The other thing I'll note just for our own -- based on our conversation this --

earlier this evening is because the current owner intends to leave the residents that exist

in the new development, our design standards would not apply -- architectural design

standards and each one of these -- because we voted for -- not voted. We collectively

decided 100 percent might be the best approach. It would not apply in this case, and so

there wouldn't be any architectural deviation requirements. Because didn't we say 100

percent of --

MS. LOE: Thirty-two.

MR. WILLIAMS: I thought it would be 100 percent. Thirty-two and 100 percent.

But there's -- one of these is not a cottage lot.

MS. LOE: Right. Of 31 that are.

MS. GEUEA JONES: It actually is a cottage lot.

MS. LOE: I believe this does meet the minimum standard that we were --

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, this is not really germane for that. I just wanted to throw it

out there as -- so that it's in our memories as we discuss these things further.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.

MR. WILLIAMS: But those are my comments.

MS. GEUEA ONES: Any other Commissioner comments? Commissioner Brodsky?

MR. BRODSKY: I just want to -- want to acknowledge your comment,

Commissioner Williams, about the -- the rear setbacks. I think that is something that I --

we can't apply it here tonight, and I do intend to support this, but something for us to

consider in the future when we are putting cottages next to existing R-1 homes. I think

you're right to point that out. I'm okay with the no parking on the road situation. I think

the road is plenty wide to accommodate moving trucks on the occasion that they do

happen. One thing I do want to point out, could you bring the plat up, perhaps? That'll

work fine. So the -- the T or hammerhead intersection in the northeast there, you know,

we have -- we have a -- there's a lot of sidewalk. I'm always -- you know, I like sidewalks.

Sidewalks are great, but sometimes with these small developments, it's, like, man, that's

a lot of sidewalk. So if -- if parking is a concern, you know, there is opportunity to

eliminate sidewalks on that -- on that T of that intersection, and then also along the

curved section with the lagoon, if we did want to eliminate that sidewalk, there would be

space for off-street parking.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other Commissioner comments? I think Commissioner

Loe. Commissioner Loe, did you have something?

MS. LOE: Oh, I do, yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please?

MS. LOE: So typically when making a decision, I point to the regulations, but first,

the plan needs to make sense to me. And we just spent a work session debating at

what level minimum standards need to be identified, with -- with some Commissioners

leaning towards relying on the common sense of the developer. And in this case, I feel

like there's not a level of common sense, and if it -- I understand it may meet regulations

that are identified, but in that case, I think we need a few more because I feel it's missing.

So -- and to that point, I'm just going to say that my decision is based on being an

architect trained in life safety code, and I understand those code regulations may --

they're written for worst--case scenarios, and may seem overzealous at times. However,

as an architect, I'm also familiar with some of the case history that shaped those code

requirements in the first place, and, as such, I can't accept a plan that requires those life

safety requirements to be compromised in order to work, so I can't support the plan as

proposed. Thanks.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: I just had a clarifying question. Commissioner Brodsky, you said

that we can't -- you noted that -- about the concerns of the ten foot, that we can't apply

that tonight, and I guess I -- I'm confused by that comment, because I think we can apply

it tonight. The way we apply it is we vote against it. So I was just confused if there was

something else that you were intending by that?

MR. BRODSKY: No. I think I was more just alluding to, you know, we couldn't say

we approve this, but with 25-yard setbacks for those lots.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further Commissioner comments? Commissioner

Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Yes. I just wanted to ask Commissioner Loe to expand on what she

meant by life safety so I can understand it better.

MS. LOE: We've been informed by staff and there's some general feeling that it's

appropriate for cars to park in the streets for various occasions, not overnight perhaps,

but on various occasions. But as we've heard from some testimony from the public, that

this -- this would impact the ability of emergency vehicles to access. And I said, codes

are written for worst case scenarios, and I can't in good judgment support a plan that

relies on compromising the minimum life safety code.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further -- Commissioner Walters?

MR. WALTERS: I've only been on the Commission seven months, and I was not part

of the Commission when quite a bit of time was spent on the cottage standards. But it

seems as if you published standards, and an applicant meets those standards, we

should be judging it by the standards that are in effect, not by the standards that we

would wish them to be. If we seek corrections that need to be made, which I do see

some. I agree with the setback thing you mentioned. I agree with the parking

considerations, but that's not on the books. And so they've submitted a plan that meets

the specifications, the staff supports it. We also on Bristol Lake, remember in January,

we approved a subdivision with 40-foot-wide lots, and the only difference I can see here --

I pulled it up -- is about a dozen lots were 50 feet wide, but the majority were 40 feet

wide, and the only other noticeable difference was the streets were 28 feet instead of 24

feet, so that did benefit the fire things. But, nevertheless, like I say, the standards are

published, the applicant made the submittal. It meets the requirements. The staff

approves it, so I plan to -- I plan to support it.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other Commissioner comments? Commissioner

Stanton?

MR. STANTON: I agree with my colleagues -- (inaudible).

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, could you -- sorry.

MR. STANTON: We see things we need to fix, we need to take note, take that the

work session. But, Madam Chair, I would like to entertain a motion if my colleagues have

no other questions.

MS. GEUEA JONES: I believe we're ready.

MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 87-2025, 4100 North Wyatt Lane, preliminary

plat. Staff, can you roll up the -- there we go. Thank you. Approval of the preliminary

plat contingent upon approval of R-2 permanent zoning and annexation and Board of

Adjustment approval of cottage development standards.

MS. ORTIZ: I second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Approval moved by Commissioner Stanton,

seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Williams, when you're ready.

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters, Mr. Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea

Jones. Voting No: Mr. Williams, Ms. Loe. Motion carries 7-2.

MR. WILLIAMS: Seven yeses and two nos.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City

Council.

Move to approve the preliminary plat contingent upon approval of R-2 permanent

zoning and annexation and Board of Adjustment approval of cottage

development standards.

7 - Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

2 - Loe and Williams

Yes:

No:

VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case # 85-2025

A request by Mark Silveria (owner) for approval of a Conditional Use

Permit (CUP) to allow 100 Gipson Street to be used as a short-term rental

for a maximum of 6 transient guests and up to 210 nights annually pursuant

to Sec. 29-3.3(vv) and Sec. 29-6.4(m)(2) of the Unified Development

Code. The approximately 0.26-acre, R-1 (One-family Dwelling) zoned,

subject site is located at the corner of North Garth Avenue and Gipson

Street, and includes the address 100 Gipson Street.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report.

Staff report was given by Mr. Ross Halligan of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow 100

Gibson Street to be operated as an STR subject to:

(1)

The occupancy permitted within the dwelling being limited to a maximum

of six transient guests regardless of potential occupancy allowed by most

recently adopted edition of the International Property Maintenance

Code(IPMC); and

(2)

A maximum of 210 nights of annual usage.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my

fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties to this case outside of a public

hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Questions for staff? Commissioner

Wilson?

MS. WILSON: I apologize. Did you say that there were some open issues, but they

had been resolved? And if there were open issues, what were they?

MR. HALLIGAN: They have been resolved, and they were from 2021, and it is related

to the non-compliance with the City's landscape management and growth of poisonous

sumac, but those were resolved in 2021.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions for staff? Seeing none. We will go to

public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: If any members of the public are here to speak on this case,

please come forward. Just as a reminder, name and address for the record, and three

minutes for individuals, six minutes for the applicant and groups. Go ahead.

MR. SILVERIA: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you. I'm Mark Silveria, and

I'm the applicant. I live at 3205 Alsup Drive here in Columbia. And I'm looking for the

short-term conditional use permit and I'm here to answer any questions if anyone has

any. We've been operating since 2018. I used to live in that house, and we were

operating when I lived there, and then we moved out and we've continued to operate. And

when we moved in, it actually had been previously used as a long-term rental, and there

was lots and lots of deferred maintenance. And having in the short-term rental actually

requires us to keep up on the maintenance and to keep the house in good order because

you get reviews based on what you -- what you have. So I'm here to answer any

questions and so just I'm in support of this.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any questions for this speaker? Commissioner Loe?

MR. SILVERIA: Yes?

MS. LOE: Thank you for coming. So I did look up the listings, and agreed with

staff's report that you appear to be or you had been listing both the upstairs and the

downstairs separately?

MR. SILVERIA: Yes.

MS. LOE: You understand moving forward, that would not be allowed?

MR. SILVERIA: So I actually had a question on that, because I read that, and if you

are using a short-term rental, are you not allowed to rent individual rooms, or does the

entire house have to be a single -- okay. Then, yes. I do understand that.

MS. LOE: All right. And -- right. I mean, the other thing you're running into is that

it's in an R-1 district --

MR. SILVERIA: Uh-huh.

MS. LOE: -- so it's a single unit. And under the rental, you can only have one

rental agreement at a time.

MR. SILVERIA: Right.

MS. LOE: I mean, you could do one or the other, but you can't -- you're going to run

into a problem doing both.

MR. SILVERIA: Right. That's understood.

MS. LOE: All right. I just wanted to make sure.

MR. SILVERIA: Yeah. Uh-huh.

MS. LOE: Thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: And just to clarify, you could rent out a single room if it were

your primary residence, but what you can't do is rent to multiple people different rooms is

what we're saying.

MS. LOE: Right. If you lived there --

MR. SILVERIA: Yeah. I understand the clarification.

MS. LOE: Yeah. Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Sorry. Just we're all muddling our way through this to

some degree.

MR. SILVERIA: It's late, I -- you know.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Any other questions for this speaker? Commissioner

Stanton?

MR. STANTON: So that's currently on the listing right now?

MS, LOE: It is, though I think your listing is the one that says minimum of 31 days?

MR. SILVERIA: So since we have the -- we're looking for a minimum for long-term

rentals, essentially, is what we're looking for.

MS. LOE: Right.

MR. SILVERIA: And our -- because we have the long-term rental license, the idea is

just to fill in anytime when we don't have a long term with a short-term rental. So for

longer outdates, we're looking for longer -- yeah.

MS. LOE: And I want to congratulate you because you did list it for 31 days, and

that's good. The other case for us had a 30-day minimum--

MR. SILVERIA: Uh-huh.

MS. LOE: -- and it should be 31, as well, if they --

MR. SILVERIA: Right. Right.

MS. LOE: Good interpretation.

MR. STANTON: Madam Chair?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Go ahead, Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: So I was asking him -- so that's currently how he's listing it up and

down. do you plan to change that, like, two minutes from now?

MR. SILVERIA: The 31 days?

MR. STANTON: Change your listing to being compliant with if you get this, like --

MR. SILVIERIA: Oh.

MR. STANTON: -- you're going do it, like, two minutes from now?

MR. SILVERIA: I can change it as soon as I am able to, yeah. I mean, I can't

promise 30 minutes from now, but as soon as I can --

MR. STANTON: Like, five minutes from now?

MR. SILVERIA: -- you know, yes.

MR. STANTON: Like five minutes from now.

MR. SILVERIA: I -- yeah.

MR. STANTON: I'm saying that because just like that Commissioner --

MR. SILVERIA: Right.

MR. STANTON: -- they're looking at it.

MR. SILVERIA: No. I -- I understand, and I'm here because I want it to be in

compliance with the City. And so if there's something I'm doing that's not in compliance

with the City, then I'm -- I'm happy to take care of that, yes.

MR. STANTON: Like, real quick.

MR. SILVERIA: As soon as I can.

MR. STANTON: Okay.

MR. SILVERIA: Five minutes. Yeah. Yeah.

MR. STANTON: That’s all my questions.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Wilson had asked about the violations. It

sounds like it was poison sumac. Was that while you were owner?

MR. SILVERIA: When I moved in, there was -- it -- the place was infested.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.

MR. SILVERIA: So I -- I -- it took a few summers of removing and it still comes

back, so this summer, I'll still be out there and I'll -- I'll be removing this summer again

probably. I will hopefully not. I did -- we did a lot of work last summer getting rid of a lot

of brush, so hopefully it's gone, but we'll see what happens.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Have you been successful doing monthly stays?

MR. SILVERIA: Yes. We had -- there are lots of traveling nurses that are looking for

monthly -- monthly stays in town, yes.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Commissioner Placier?

MS. PLACIER: Yeah. I wanted to ask you about the one objection that we received.

MR. SILVERIA: Yes. And --

MS. PLACIER: It had to do with safety, and apparently this person was unaware that

you were already in operation. They thought it was going to be some new thing with

these transient guests.

MR. SILVERIA: So --

MS. PLACIER: Is there anything that you do to communicate with the neighbors

about this?

MR. SILVERIA: Yeah. I can comment to that. And first, I'd -- I'll comment on the --

the one objection, and that was -- let me have my notes here. That was done by Greg

and Joan Cason, and they own the property across the street, 101 Gipson, but that's

been a rental property and they've never lived there, as far as I've known. They're -- and

they signed it Cason -- Casey Rentals, LLC. It's been a rental property and it's actually

been vacant for several months, probably four-ish, but I'm not exactly sure how long. So

that -- that one has been vacant, and the neighbor across the street, when she lived

there, she knew I was operating the short-term rental. Her husband, well, they -- they

split up, but he was taking care of the lawn care for me while I was there. Our direct

neighbors, we were also good friends with, and when we moved out, they -- they knew

what we were doing there, too. So -- and then the one person behind us, like, shortly

after we moved in and we started doing it, they asked us, and we said, yeah, we're doing

this, and they said okay, great. We were wondering, because we see people, yeah.

MS. PLACIER: You're readily available if --

MR. SILVERIA: Absolutely. Yeah. Uh-huh.

MS. PLACIER: -- a neighbor did have -- they have a way to get ahold of you?

MR. SILVERIA: So, the direct neighbors have my phone number. The

across-the-street neighbors are -- they're gone, so, but I am available. If I see them, I'll --

and someone moving in, I'm happy to say hi to them, so, yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much for

being here tonight. We appreciate it.

MR. SILVERIA: Yeah. Thank you, guys.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other people to speak on this case tonight? Seeing

none. We will close public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: We will close public hearing and go to Commissioner

comments. Any Commissioner comments? Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: Do my colleagues have any additional questions? If my colleagues

don't have any additional questions, Madam Chair, I'd like to entertain a motion.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please go for it.

MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 85-2025, 100 Gipson Street, STR conditional

use permit, I move to approve the STR conditional use permit subject to the following:

210 nights of rental, and a maximum of six transient guests, unless -- regardless of

allowance permitted by the IPMC.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there a second?

MS. LOE: Second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by

Commissioner Loe. Is there any discussion on the motion?

MR. WILLIAMS: I just --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, sorry.

MR. WILLIAMS: Just for the record. Just for the record. I think we've previously put

a lot of weight on someone who has been operating for a long period of time without any

known complaints, and when neighbors say that there's an issue and they don't realize

it's just because, theoretically, they don't like it and -- and yet, they're -- it's been ongoing

without any -- any complaints from those neighbors, then we've put a lot of weight on that,

and I don't see a reason to change it. Here, I'll note for the record -- thank you, staff, for

identifying it's close to a school, which has been an issue that's been near and dear to

hearts on this Commission and probably some consciences on trying to figure out what

to do with that. But I just -- probably that one for the record, as well.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing

none. When you're ready Commissioner -- oh, sorry. Go ahead.

MR. STANTON: Continue.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Williams, when you're ready.

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters, Mr. Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea

Jones, Mr. Williams, Ms. Loe. Motion carries 9-0.

MR. WILLIAMS: Nine to zero.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City

Council. Our last case for the evening.

Move to approve the STR conditional use permit subject to the following: 210

nights of rental, and a maximum of six transient guests regardless of allowance

permitted by the IPMC.

9 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Williams, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

Yes:

Case # 93-2025

A request by Annette Humphries (agent), on behalf of KSBF Properties,

L.P. (owner), to allow 1510 Marylee Drive to be used as a short-term rental

for a maximum of 8 transient guests and up to 210 nights annually pursuant

to Sec. 29-3.3(vv) and Sec. 29-6.4(m)(2) of the Unified Development

Code. The approximately 0.23-acre, R-1 (One-family Dwelling) zoned,

subject site is located at the corner of Mills Drive and Marylee Drive and

includes the address of 1510 Marylee Drive.

MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?

Staff report was given by Mr. Ross Halligan of the Planning and Development

Department. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit allowing 1510

Marylee Drive to be operated as an STR:

(1) A maximum occupancy of eight transient guests regardless of potential

occupancy allowed by most recently adopted edition of the International

Property Maintenance Code (IPMC); and

(2) A maximum of 210 nights of annual usage.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my fellow

Commissioners have had contact with a party to this case outside of a public hearing,

please disclose so now. Seeing none. Are there questions?

MS. ORTIZ: I have a question.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: I saw that you said that we have a letter in support, but I don't see that

in our material.

MR. HALLIGAN: That might have been lost in translation. Like, I apologize, or rather

an error.

MS. ORTIZ: So there was no letter of support?

MR. HALLIGAN: I felt like I recall the -- a phone call at the very least, but I don't

recall -- do not recall a letter off the top of my head?

MS. ORTIZ: Okay. So just the one letter --

MR. HALLIGAN: Was the -- was the letter that was in the correspondence file a

written letter?

MS. ORTIZ: Yes.

MR. HALLIGAN: So there should have been provided -- there was in my file, there

was another -- okay. Well, there was a letter of support, yes. I recalled that correctly. I

don't know how that didn't get to you guys, but there, in our file where we record all the

correspondence, there is a letter of support. I apologize that didn't make it to the

meeting.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any other questions? Seeing none. We'll go to

public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MS. GEUEA JONES: If there any members of the public, please come forward now.

MR. HUMPHRIES: I'm Steve Humphries, 2005 Hatton Court. I'm here to represent

grandma's house at 1510 Marylee. The home has been in our family since 1977. In

September of 2020, we began hosting with Airbnb. We average 32 weekends a year,

approximately 96 days. This past year, we had 97 days of occupancy. Our typical

guests come on Friday afternoon. They check out on Sunday morning. They're usually

here for some sort of University related event. We routinely get five-star ratings,

something that we are very proud of. We do all the maintenance of the property

ourselves, and we've invested in new HVAC and appliances. So if anybody has any

questions about what we're doing?

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe?

MS. LOE: Thank you for coming, Mr. Humphries. I was curious about -- I read your

reviews. They're very nice.]

MR. HUMPHRIES: Thank you.

MS. LOE: I was interested in how many parties over eight. Just how much is the

cap going to impact you.

MR. HUMPHRIES: Well, currently, we've been accepting up to 12.

MS. LOE: Uh-huh. I saw that in the --

MR. HUMPHRIES: And we're certainly have no problem with going to eight. Yeah.

MS. LOE: Okay.

MR. HUMPHRIES: Not an issue at all.

MS. LOE: Thank you.

MR. HUMPRHIES: Okay.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions for this speaker? Thank you very much

for being here tonight.

MR. HUMPHRIES: Thank you. Yeah.

MS. GEUEA JONES: We will -- or anyone else from the public here to speak on this

case? Seeing none, we will close public comment.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comment. Any Commissioner comments?

Commissioner Stanton?

MR. STANTON: If my colleagues do not have any other questions relating to this

case --

MS. GEUEA JONES: Please

MR. STANTON: -- I would entertain a motion, Madam Chair. As it relates to

Case 93-2025, 1510 Marylee Drive, STR conditional use permit, I move to approve the

request subject to the following: 210 nights of rental and a maximum of eight transient

guests, regardless of the allowance permitted by IPMC.

MS. ORTIZ: I second.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by

Commissioner Ortiz. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.

Commissioner Williams.

Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.

Wilson, Mr. Walters, Mr. Brodsky, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Placier, Mr. Stanton, Ms. Geuea

Jones, Mr. Williams, Ms. Loe. Motion carries 9-0.

MR. WILLIAMS: Nine yeses and zero nos.

MS. GEUEA JONES: That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

Seeing no other cases to come before us tonight.

Move to approve the request subject to the following: 210 nights of rental and a

maximum of eight transient guests, regardless of the allowance permitted by

IPMC.

9 - Loe, Stanton, Geuea Jones, Placier, Wilson, Williams, Walters, Ortiz and Brodsky

Yes:

IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: If any member of the public has a comment of a general

nature to bring before us, please do so now. Seeing none.

X. STAFF COMMENTS

MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner?

MR. ZENNER: Your next meeting will be on March 20th. We will serve coffee before

we get there. We have our PSA that we have to introduce. We will be having a

community summit on March 15th from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. It will actually be in this

room, as well as throughout the first floor of City Hall. It's not going to your typical

government meeting. You get to participate in some interactive activities, ask staff from

multiple departments questions and offer input as it relates to our strategic plan and the

future of the City of Columbia, and how you, as a resident, may be interested in seeing

us grow. Everyone is invited. There will be food and refreshments and other

entertainment activities. Bring the kids because they will have opportunities, as well, to

participate, as well as to be occupied. With that, I will move on to why you will have

coffee. So on March 20th, as I have forewarned you all for weeks, you have that many

cases. So if you think tonight was a long meeting, just wait. So we have before you two

categories of cases, and you will be seeing your agendas presented to you in this fashion

moving forward. You will have general business items which we will be taking care of,

and then we will basically be segregating in our meeting all of the conditional use permits

for short-term rental. Of these cases, the first one, 74-25 is a repeat. This is at 201 East

Old Plank Road. It's the current church at the corner of Old Plank and South Bethel

requested originally a permanent zoning for R-1. They requested tabling to allow us to

readvertise for R-2, and this is in anticipation of future development activity on the eastern

portion of the acreage. We have Case 89-25. Some of you that are familiar with this

particular area, this is in the southeast corner of Vandiver and U.S. 63. It is a parcel that

has -- was part of the Center State Development where Bass Pro and Menard's is located

on the west side. This is the eastern undeveloped tract directly across from all of the

existing commercial development. This is an existing PD parcel; however, there has

never been a PD plan approved on it, so they are coming in with a PD plan for approval

which includes three developed lots being shown on that plan, and a remaining five lots --

or three additional development lots and then two lots that would be used for stormwater

and tree preservation purposes to be able to get and secure the PD plan approval. There

is a revision to the Statement of Intent, and this revision to the Statement of Intent

includes a lot of different details. This is a particular site that is being sought to be

developed with two hotels and a convention center. So one of the things that you will be

encountering with this Statement of Intent is actually a design exception which is a

unique element of a planned district to allow for increased building height. Mr. Palmer will

unpack the entire package for you at our next meeting. A lot of detail. This one actually

was delayed to allow us to get several of our questions answered, and to get the project

in order. The PD plan also serves as the project's preliminary plat, and then a final plat

would be required to come forward to secure permits for the future developable lots that

will be shown on the plan. Mr. Halligan here to my right will be handling 92-25. This is

Discovery Apartments. It's one of the last developable parcels that is left at Discovery

Park, and this is at the -- it's north of Artemis Drive and at the very end of Endeavor

Avenue, which is the parcel or the roadway that bisects the southwest corner of the

property, and it is the road that is immediately adjoining where The Kitchen is. The

development parcel, however, is behind all of the existing development. This does have

an apartment complex to it built as a new town center type of feel, and it has been

reviewed quite heavily as it relates to the impervious and other maximum floor area

coverages relating to the commercial development of Discovery, and that will be

unpacked during the meeting, as well. A complex plan, but one that's exciting for us

because we are nearing the end, hopefully of unknowns. 100-25, this is on Chapel Hill

Road directly across from the car wash, if you all are familiar. This is a rezoning request

from a former request PD to an MN, and Mr. Kirtis Orendorff will be handling that for you.

And then another planned district project, at -- and it's 102-25, that is 3101 Carter Lane.

This is the parcel that was immediately to the northeast of Tacos for Life, and

immediately abuts the adjoining multi-family residential subdivision that is north of that

particular open acreage. This is a major amendment to the existing PD plan. It includes

two lots of the three that are on the south -- or northeast side of Carter Lane. It does also

have a Statement of Intent revision, so it is requesting some additional uses to be added

to the Statement of Intent that were not previously permitted. And then your short-term

rental cavalcade of cases. 2107 Grant Lane, this is in an R-1 zoning district. It is

seeking 210 nights for eight transient guests. 97-25, 206 Third Avenue, this is a duplex,

so it is apartment 100. It is in an R-2 zone, seeking if I am not incorrect, four transient

guests at 210 nights. 98-25, 2301 Primrose Drive. This is townhouse project. It is one

of the first that we have seen. It is Unit D. It is R-MF zoned, and again, 210 nights, and

that occupancy is, I believe, two. 504 Campusview Drive, that's case 104-25. Again, an

R-1 short-term rental, 210 nights, eight transient guests. This is in the Seven Oaks

Subdivision. That name probably should sound familiar because that was where Boulder

Drive was back in November of this year. And then Case 105-25, 801 Norman Drive.

That is again another R-1 STR. It is sought for 210 nights, as well as eight transient

guests, and again, in the Seven Oaks Subdivision. Here are your maps. Your Old Plank

property, which is a repeat from a delayed case with the upgraded zoning. Our U.S. 63

southeast of the roundabout Center State property. And then we are looking at the

planned development down at Discovery at the end of Endeavor north of Artemis. And our

last two general items, our Chapel Hill property, and then our property that is off of Carter

Lane just to the northeast of Tacos for Live. Short-term Rentals Properties, your Grant

Lane property. This is down Chapel Hill and then Grant Lane, your 206 Third Avenue,

somewhat close to the high school, Hickman, and then 2 -- 2301 Primrose, that little dot,

and is the end of a multi-family building that is a townhouse project. And then our two

that are in the Seven Oaks environment, the one at 504 Campusview Drive and then the

one that is at 801 Norman. Those are your cases. I can tell you that we have had a

closing of an application period for our April 10th meeting. If I get my dates right here.

Your April 10th meeting has 11 items on it, nine of which are short-term rentals. So what

happens moving forward? That's a good question. I don't know, but I will be glad when

we maybe reach June 1st, and compliance should have been arrived at, but of the studies

that we have had and our access to Airbnb data, as well as our vendors that we have

consulted with as it relates to short-term rental monitoring, there are approximately 475

total short-term rentals presently within the market. To date, 38 of them have come

before us or will be before us. There are 17 pending public hearings right now. If we

continue to move at the volume we're moving at, we may have to consider potentially

opening an additional meeting. Tonight's meeting has now run for almost four and a half

hours or three and a half hours. I would anticipate probably your 20th's meeting and then

the 10th's meeting to run closer to four and a half, maybe five. May be able to get

through all of our short-term rentals as we did tonight in about 35 minutes, and if that is

the case, we will continue to endeavor to give you good staff reports so you don't ask a

lot of questions. And hopefully, what you did see tonight was helpful for you, based on

our conversations at our last work session as it related to those questions. We continue

to try to strive to meet the expectation of the Commission, and our working with our

applicants to get them to get us the information we need in order to be able to give you

what you need. With that, I thank you very much for your time, your attention, your

service this evening, and for the direction that you did provide during work session as it

relates to our small-lot integration project. Some of the conversation this evening with Mr.

Gebhardt's project will be considered as we move forward, and we look forward to the

continued discussion as we try to work out those use specific standards, specifically to

be able to give our proposed regulations to the design firms in town to break. With that,

thank you.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, and hopefully we seem to be getting faster at the

short-term rentals, so hopefully we can --

XI. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

MR. STANTON: I had a comment, Madam Chair, when you get through.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Go ahead, Commissioner Stanton.

MR. STANTON: I would like to commend the Commission and staff in particular,

because I feel like they give us enough information, we didn't have to have too much back

and forth with the STRs. Continue that good work so we can push through these as

efficiently as possible, and it is Women's History Month. I'm too tired to make an

explanation or give any history tidbits tonight, so I'll just say in general to my colleagues

on the -- on the P & Z, Happy Women's History Month. I'll have something next time.

MS. GEUEA JONES: We appreciate you. Any other Commissioner comments?

MS. ORTIZ: I do.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Ortiz?

MS. ORTIZ: There were some things said here tonight that were very personally

hurtful to me and my upbringing. And I don't want to get emotional, but if the worst

possible case is that you live next to Section 8, that's where I grew up, and I would love

to by my neighbor. I don't think it would be that bad.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.

MS. WILSON: I think that, first of all, thank you for sharing that. And everybody

here already knows, I usually speak up for things, and I was -- I was ready because I'm

living through this right now with a family member who could not find a place to stay

because everybody is like, oh, you have a Section 8 voucher, no thank you. And I'm,

like, she's a human being with children. What's the problem? But I think that -- take the

opportunity to share that because sometimes people just don't know. We don't -- we --

(inaudible) -- each other so much that we don't get to look in the face of people and see

this is a person just like me. And so I think I've had so many opportunities, and I'm

grateful for those opportunities to share my experiences and I would welcome you to

share yours, as well.

MR. STANTON: I tried to keep my mouth shut, and I couldn't. So depend on me, if

you want my -- hey, I’ll run my mouth whenever -- whenever feasible, ladies.

MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. I was very disappointed. Anyway, anyone else?

XII. NEXT MEETING DATE - March 20, 2025 @ 7 pm (tentative)