City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
Planning and Zoning Commission  
Council Chambers  
Thursday, July 18, 2024  
7:00 PM  
REGULAR MEETING  
I. CALL TO ORDER  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Good evening. I will now call the Thursday, July 18th, 2024  
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order.  
II. INTRODUCTIONS  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll, may we have a roll call?  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Geuea Jones?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Placier? Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Walters?  
MR. WALTERS: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Loe?  
MS. LOE: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Present.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Williams?  
MR. WILLIAMS: Here.  
MS. CARROLL: Commissioner Baysinger? I am here. We have seven; we have a  
quorum.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.  
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes -- or to  
the agenda, Mr. Zenner?  
MR. ZENNER: No, there are not, ma'am.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Could I get a thumbs up -- or motion to approve?  
MS. LOE: Move to approve.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner Loe, seconded by Commissioner  
Stanton. Thumbs up approval of the agenda?  
MR. WALTERS: I abstain, I guess?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: No. That’s the next one.  
MR. WALTERS: Oh, on the agenda. Okay.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Good.  
(Unanimous vote for approval.)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Agenda unanimously approved.  
Move to approve.  
7 -  
Present:  
Absent:  
Sara Loe, Anthony Stanton, Valerie Carroll, Sharon Geuea Jones, Shannon Wilson,  
Thomas Williams and Robert Walters  
2 - Peggy Placier and Carl Baysinger  
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  
June 20, 2024 Regular Meeting  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Next, we all received a copy of the June 20th, 2024 regular  
meeting minutes. Are there any changes or adjustments to the minutes? Seeing none.  
Is there a motion?  
MS. LOE: Move to approve.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Moved by Commissioner Loe, seconded by Commissioner  
Stanton. A thumbs up approval of the minutes?  
(Four votes for approval; three abstentions.)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: We've got unanimous with three abstentions, Commissioners  
Walters, Carroll, and Geuea Jones. Thank you.  
Move to approve.  
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SUBDIVISIONS  
Case # 185-2024  
A request by Allstate Consultants (agent), on behalf of Yankee Ridge LLC  
(owner), for approval to rezone 22.26 acres from the A (Agricultural) district  
to the R-2 (Two-family Dwelling) district to allow cottage-style development  
on the parcel, pursuant to a separate conditional use permit. The subject  
site is located at 2899 Creasy Springs Road.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?  
Staff report was given by Mr. Rusty Palmer of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning to the R-2 district.  
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. Are there any questions for staff?  
Seeing none. We will now open the floor to public comment.  
PUBLIC COMMENT OPENED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on  
this case? Please come forward. Please state your name and address for the record.  
You may have to pull that microphone up so we can hear you. Name and address for the  
record. We do three minutes for individuals, six minutes for groups. Begin whenever  
you're ready.  
MR. HARRINGTON: Great. Good evening. I'm Brian Harrington with Allstate  
Consultants representing the owner of this tract. I don't have a lot to add to the -- to  
what's already been said. We do intend to go to the Board of Adjustment next as per the  
procedure, and assuming that we -- we are successful here and I get a recommendation  
for approval tonight. And with that, I'll just open it up to any questions you might have of  
me.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker about  
this case? Seeing none.  
MR. HARRINGTON: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the  
public here to speak on this case tonight? Seeing none. We will close the public  
hearing and go to Commissioner comments. .  
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any Commissioner comments on the case? Before  
we go to the motion, I just want to remark that this is the exact kind of case that is why  
we are working on small lots and cottage standards and that sort of thing. So hopefully  
you'll be the last person that has to go through this three-step process. All right. Is there  
a motion on this case that anyone would like to make?  
MS. CARROLL: In the matter of --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: Sorry.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: You’re fine. Go ahead.  
MS. CARROLL: In the matter of Case Number 185-2024, Allstate rezoning from  
agricultural to R-2, I move to approve the requesting R-2 zoning.  
MR. STANTON: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion made by Commissioner Carroll, seconded by  
Commissioner Stanton. Is there any discussion on the motion? Commissioner  
Williams, did you have anything? No? Okay. In that case, may we have a roll call?  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.  
Geuea Jones, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Walters, Ms. Loe, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Williams, Ms.  
Carroll, Motion carries 7-0.  
MS. CARROLL: We have seven, the motion is carried.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City  
Council. Our next case is for the same property.  
In the matter of Case Number 185-2024, Allstate rezoning from agricultural to R-2,  
move to approve the requesting R-2 zoning.  
7 - Loe, Stanton, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Wilson, Williams and Walters  
2 - Placier and Baysinger  
Yes:  
Absent:  
Case # 184-2024  
A request by Allstate Consultants (agent), on behalf of Yankee Ridge LLC  
(owner), for approval of a 122-lot Preliminary Plat of 52.15-acre parcel  
located at 2899 Creasy Springs to be known as “Bennett Ridge”. A  
concurrent request to rezone (Case # 185-2024) the subject property to  
R-2 has been submitted for consideration and the applicants intend to  
pursue Board of Adjustment authorization to use the “cottage” optional  
development standards such that the proposed subdivision may be platted  
and subsequently improved with cottage-sized lots.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?  
Staff report was given by Mr. Rusty Palmer of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff approval of the "Bennett Ridge Preliminary Plat" pursuant to minor  
technical corrections.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, once again, if  
any members of the Commissioner have had contact with parties outside of a public  
hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Questions for staff? Commissioner Loe?  
MS. LOE: Thank you for the report, Planner Palmer. I do have a few questions, and  
they reference our subdivision standards 29-5.1(c) Streets section of the UDC. It strikes  
me that both Ella and Elijah [sic] appear to be longer than the 600 feet that we allow for a  
block length. Did you -- did you look at the length of the streets?  
MR. PALMER: Honestly, I didn't. I'm trying to think of what that process was when  
we went through the review.  
MS. LOE: When I added up the lot dimensions, we're getting close to about double  
that on Ella, and Elijah is shorter, but also exceeds by at least 50 percent. And we have  
run into this on some other proposals and we've --  
MR. PALMER: Yeah.  
MS. LOE: added some --  
MR. PALMER: I think the solution would be another cross street between the  
two.  
MS. LOE: Yeah.  
MR. PALMER: Okay.  
MS. LOE: But given -- given your additional comments on the development of Lot  
121, I'm also wondering about our limitation on cul-de-sacs. If we really don't think this is  
going to be developed, are we essentially building a cul-de-sac here? And I was just  
wondering --  
MR. PALMER: It's essentially a T turn-around. Yeah.  
MS. LOE: Yeah. So what would the -- do we need to look at that? Or how do we  
apply -- because the cul-de-sac length is 300 feet and may be adjusted for steep slopes,  
creeks, et cetera. I understand why the T is there, but if we're saying this is not going to  
be developed in the foreseeable future, or ever, I'm just wondering does this become a  
loophole where someone can put a T in to build a cul-de-sac at longer length?  
MR. ZENNER: The T turnaround is an acceptable alternative in the fire code to a  
cul-de-sac.  
MS. LOE: Okay.  
MR. ZENNER: So that is permissible. And in consideration of the point that you're  
making, Ms. Loe, Elijah and -- Eliah, whatever they are, they're too close in name. I  
mean, if we look at Lot 121 as not being developable in any of the near term, you're  
looking actually at an entire loop street then at that point. The T -- the T turnaround really  
is just to meet the fire code at that particular point. And if we did not -- and to meet,  
basically, the other requirements that we need to stub to undeveloped property, so it's  
serving two functions really. So if we looked at the loop street, even though they're two  
different names, if we looked at it as one continuous street, the distance at that point on  
the two segments I would contend is not relevant, and I think, at this point, what you have  
is you've got just -- you have a long loop street that basically comes back out to the  
extension of the existing street that goes both north and south to Creasy. And I think  
that that is possibly what was evaluated at the time that this was being done, given the  
uncertain nature of Lot 121. Maybe not ostensibly stated in any staff comments that  
were made at that point, and definitely not looking at it from the perspective that you, as  
a Commissioner, are at this juncture, but that would be a reasonable and a plausible  
explanation in my mind that it wasn't culled out sooner. But to deal definitely with the  
cul-de-sac related issue, the T turnaround is an acceptable alternative during -- with the  
fire code, and it addresses also the issue of allowing for the stub street to Lot 121's future  
development should that occur without having to punch through a cul-de-sac constructed.  
MS. LOE: I understand and appreciate the fire safety qualification. I do agree that  
121 is there, but given the condition that it can't be developed without that connection to  
the east, I do consider that to be somewhat hampered. I guess my only final comment  
on this would be I think the other reason that we limited the length of cul-de-sacs was to  
increase connections so that we wouldn't have streets that required returning back to a  
single point. And this, while it does address the fire safety and potentially does do the  
long-term development, it does not address that last issue which was something that we  
were attempting to embrace. So I would just -- I would say that in the future, or I agree  
this sets it, but I am a little concerned that it's being granted or we're ending up with a  
much longer cul-de-sac with development that may well not happen that we're saying --  
back to the length of Ella and Eliah, can we add the cross street, the connecting --  
MR. ZENNER: I would -- I would defer to the applicant's engineer --  
MS. LOE: Okay.  
MR. ZENNER: -- as to the possibility, based on grades that are associated with the  
property as to if that can be accomplished. I think that this site does have some  
challenges associated with it even within the developed area that's proposed to be  
rezoned or has been rezoned at this point, so that would be a more technical question to  
answer. If it were possible, the approval could be conditioned such that at the time of  
final platting, a break or a connecting street between the two being proposed is provided,  
and we would address that as a part of final plat that would be submitted.  
MS. LOE: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there further questions for staff? So to clarify, Mr. Zenner,  
you don't think that these -- you don't think our current code requires these streets to  
have an intersection, based on their length of more than --  
MR. ZENNER: I think if we were to have just done a -- if the design did not -- if the  
design more came in between, and it does in some respects, between two lots and was  
150-foot stub street, but otherwise the entire linear continuation of the road was one  
single road, it was a loop. That would, I think, mitigate the concern that Ms. Loe is  
issuing, because it's a single street at that point. It's one continuous street that comes  
back to two points, but it comes back to the same primary street which has two access  
points out of the development, thereby meeting the requirements that you have two points  
of ingress and egress to a development over 30 lots or units. I think what's designed  
here, what's shown here is a little bit deceptive in the fact that the reality is without Lot  
121 being developed, you're looking at one -- you're concluding that the northern street is  
basically a dead end when, in fact, it really is a loop because you can't go any further  
east.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Right. I'm not looking at the stub street, I'm looking at the  
connectivity standard. Does that not apply? Let's see. Where am I?  
MS. LOE: That --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Does it? Okay. All right. Commissioner Loe is whispering in  
my ear that the math works out.  
MS. LOE: For connectivity.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: For connectivity. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry.  
Commissioner Loe, did you have a follow up?  
MS. LOE: I did have a follow up. I'm sorry. There -- I have to many flags on my  
code, as usual. I had -- there was one more subdivision street requirement that this did  
not appear to fully meet, I wanted to ask Planner Palmer about, that no local residential  
street segment should serve more than 30 dwelling units without additional street  
connections, and we have well over 30 dwellings on both Ella and Eliah.  
MR. PALMER: So that's in -- well, it's in conjunction with the fire requirement, which  
is no more than 30 lots off of a single point of access. And so it's -- they kind of work in  
conjunction with one another, so the fact that we have two points of access is why that --  
MR. ZENNER: And I think the two points of access that we're talking about is the  
northern connection to -- now you're talking about the loop itself.  
MS. LOE: No. This isn't a cul-de-sac. This is between two street connections; we  
shall have no more than 30 dwelling units.  
MR. PALMER: So in that -- in that regard, we were counting each intersection as a  
different --  
MS. LOE: Correct. That's shown on our Figure 5.1-2.  
MR. PALMER: Right.  
MS. LOE: Yes.  
MR. PALMER: I was just saying in this -- in this instance, we're counting the stub  
as another intersection.  
MS. LOE: It is another intersection, but there are more than 30 lots on Ella between  
--  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Emery.  
MS. LOE: -- Emery and the stub. Ditto for Eliah. Ella is over 1,000 feet long  
between Ella and the stub.  
MR. PALMER: And the reason -- the reason that wasn't brought up is because we're  
looking at it as -- because that stub is allowed there --  
MS. LOE: No. We can't have a block more than 600 feet.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. That's --  
MS. LOE: We have a block more than 600 feet. This block needs to be split up.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: You have 47 houses that enter onto Ella.  
MR. ZENNER: Again, I would ask that the applicants’ engineer --  
MS. LOE: Okay.  
MR. ZENNER: -- approach and address the issue if, in fact, that a cross street,  
given topographic conditions, cannot otherwise be installed.  
MS. LOE: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.  
MR. ZENNER: Again, the review of this plat, while it goes through multiple levels of  
review, and unfortunately this is a gaff that has maybe been made at the planning level,  
the fire code and the fire department plan reviewers are involved in this and therefore, we  
often defer to them and their discretion as it relates to how to handle certain issues that  
are, as Mr. Palmer pointed out, fire code driven. And so often a lot of our standards,  
these lot limitation standards are more driven by the fire code's concern. The fire  
department has not made any reserved comment as it relates to this design because of  
the looped nature of the street system and the two points back out to Creasy Springs via  
the southern extension of Emery and then the northern connection out, and that, hence,  
is one reason. The other that they often will utilize just for the purposes of closing the  
loop on this is the secondary street or the stub that is going to the east is often evaluated  
as a future connection, and so the fire service will look at that secondary connection to  
the stub irrespective of the time frame that that may be built in as also addressing some  
of their overall concerns. They know that there will be the potential for that connection to  
exist. This development, if it had gotten any larger than this, I'm fairly confident we would  
have required it to have been broken down into other phasing and would have restricted  
the development associated notwithstanding the concerns that have been brought up that  
a cross-street connection may be required. So with that, I -- unless you have additional  
questions for staff, we can probably ask the applicant to come forward.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Seeing no further questions for staff at this time -- oh, sorry.  
We do have two questions. Commissioner Carroll and then Commissioner Williams.  
MS. CARROLL: So could -- just hypothetically, trying to understand what their  
available paths are, if they are not able to do a road -- a connector road due to  
topographical issues, could Board of Adjustments grant them relief for the site condition  
or is that --  
MR. ZENNER: The relief would be granted through this body --  
MS. CARROLL: -- through this body?  
MR. ZENNER: -- and would require an additional -- require an additional hearing or a  
tabling of this request and a design adjustment to be brought forward accordingly.  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah. Okay. Thanks.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Williams?  
MR. WILLIAMS: I was wondering about the curves on -- all the --(inaudible) -- on  
Ella, and I was just wondering if that's -- they're consistent with the regulations for that  
particular -- for a neighborhood street, the degree of curve there?  
MR. PALMER: I believe they are. I don't remember, off the top of my head, what  
that one is.  
MR. ZENNER: Residential streets, unlike the case that we have previously handled,  
which was a -- a neighborhood collector, which we do have differing curve radii.  
Residential streets allow much tighter curve radii, so these streets, we would have  
evaluated that most likely. However, the detail of the design at this point, because we do  
not have all of the measurements, which is not a requirement of a preliminary plat, we will  
have to have that final verified at the time of final platting where we have all curve data  
provided in tangent lengths. And if, in fact, that there is an issue, that would need to be  
addressed as a part of the construction plan presentation. Preliminary plats are intended  
to provide a general overview of what the development of the parcel will look like and its  
general compliance with the code. It is not an authorization to proceed forward with the  
subdivision of land. That is what the final plat process is for, which requires very site  
specific development plans to be submitted and surveying standards to be met.  
Preliminary plats do not hold to those same standards.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any -- sorry. Commissioner Williams, anything else?  
MR. WILLIAMS: No. Thank you, Mr. Zenner.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: All right. Seeing no further questions for staff at this time, we  
will open the floor to public hearing.  
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED  
MR. HARRINGTON: Hello. Again, my name is Brian Harrington with Allstate  
Consultants, at 3312 Lemone Industrial Boulevard. Kind of working through these  
questions. To start off with, I'll start with the easy one. The curves -- the curves do meet  
all the -- all the requirements for residential streets, which is essentially 100-foot radius --  
minimum radius at the center line. Regarding the cul-de-sac length, which generally I  
would describe as the point where you have -- you would measure that from the point  
where you have a single access from there on which is effectively just that last 120 feet of  
stub, so I think that's where the cul-de-sac would be measured from, the way I would -- I  
would understand that. Because of the loop nature of that, we do have two points of  
access, both to the -- the first street -- and so we have access to Creasy Springs, as well  
as the street to the south, which I'm forgetting the name of in the moment, but -- so from  
our perspective, we didn't think there was any kind of cul-de-sac issue at all. If Lot 121 is  
ever developed in the future, which the likely scenario would be through the property to  
the south to connect into the street to the south, we don't own that property, so we don't  
control it. We don't -- we don't have any control over when that might happen. We're  
content with -- with developing as it and letting that sit until -- until such time. If that were  
to go through, then that addresses any other concerns about the two points of access.  
We did meet with the fire department after our concept review because of the concerns  
about that and went over with them in great detail about the length of -- or the distance  
between the two points of access. They have a formula for that that's in the fire code that  
-- that basically is a little bit convoluted, but it's twice the distance between the -- the  
width of the developed area can't be more than twice the distance of the -- the length  
between the two access points. And so they have some specific criteria which we did  
meet on that. Regarding the cross street, that's the -- that's the hard one to address right  
now because it is a very challenging site topographically. We -- basically, the western  
road is running along a ridge. The contours reflect this. It's a little hard to see on the  
screens. But both Eliah and Ella -- I'm getting the street names mixed up, both of those  
go down the hill at a relatively steep grade. They'll be eight to nine percent. And if we  
introduce a cross street in there -- oh. and then they are also at different elevations, so  
we're working downhill, both longitudinally or along the length of the street, but also from  
a cross -- across the street standpoint in that the -- the lots that back up to each other  
are going to have a little bit of elevation change, as well. So that makes the cross street  
extremely difficult. Part of the reason you see so much curvature in that northern street  
in particular is so that we have enough length to make the -- the grades work and actually  
keep them under the ten percent requirement. If we put a cross street in there, then we'll  
have to flatten out the intersection for that, and that's going to cause problems with the  
profile grade of the street. Does that answer your questions? Sorry. I kind of ran  
through them all.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: No, you're good. Do you have more, or can we start  
peppering you?  
MR. HARRINGTON: Go right ahead.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Commissioner Loe?  
MS. LOE: Thank you for that. I do understand that this has gone through the fire  
safety review. However, the requirement in the subdivision standards is to promote  
walkability and multi-modal, as well as safety, and it is something we want to see in the  
communities we're building. So I'm sorry. It sounds like it was something that wasn't  
picked up. It also sounds like it's something you may need to study a little more.  
MR. HARRINGTON: I think it's going to be nearly impossible with this particular tract  
to make that cross street without punishing other areas as far as the steepness of the  
streets. Now from the connectivity standpoint, another one that doesn't -- the preliminary  
plat doesn't adequately reflect, but I should point out, we do intend to make a connection  
to the Bear Creek Trail through our common area that goes kind of straight north from the  
top of that loop. That's not really something that -- that reflects on the preliminary plat  
because we're not really to that stage, but -- but the trail runs right along the north  
property line, right along the creek. And you can see we left a stub into -- or a vacant  
tract into that common area, which we'll also have some -- some water -- storm-water  
management in that area, but then we'll -- we want to make a connection into that -- into  
the Bear Creek Trail. So there will be another point of pedestrian access. It doesn't  
address your -- the vehicular access, but it does go towards the pedestrian connectivity.  
MS. LOE: So in some other subdivision proposals where we've run into this issue,  
we have considered, and I'd like to put it to the Commission -- we have considered a  
connection that isn't fully vehicular but does provide pedestrian and bicycle connection  
across the site. Is that -- I'm wondering if that's something that we would accept as an  
alternative.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Uh-huh. We'll discuss it when --  
MS. LOE: Okay.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Did you have more? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: I'm going to get right to the nitty-gritty.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Uh-huh.  
MR. STANTON: Are you willing to negotiate, or do you want us to vote on it as it,  
ride or die?  
MR. HARRINGTON: Well, if you're going to vote for it, then I want your vote for it  
now. I guess I need some advice from you guys on that because it's -- I do know that it's  
-- it's going to be very difficult to do that. But that's going to be -- I guess our other option  
is to -- to go for a design variance, of course, there --  
MR. ZENNER: That’s a possibility.  
MR. HARRINGTON: -- but we haven't started that process.  
MR. ZENNER: That's a possibility. I'll let you all finish. There's another provision in  
the Code that I believe is applicable here, and it would have been in our discretion to have  
made that decision, so it might not have necessarily been a Commission discretionary  
decision that needed to be made in order to bring this plat forward to you. Finish your  
conversation, and I'll offer -- I'll offer what section of the Code that's in.  
MR. HARRINGTON: Because of the steep nature of this -- this tract, we spent a lot  
more extensive time and kind of preliminary design from a grading perspective than we  
did. We've already -- we have already made some rock probes to see how deep the rock  
is in different places, and it varies quite a bit in that area, but as being across the street  
from the quarry, you obviously -- we know there's rock. We know that we have to step  
this site from south to north down, but we also have to go from the ridge to the east down  
to -- to basically where that stub street is. That stub street is following -- it basically is  
near a draw that the line that you see kind of winding through here is the sanitary sewer  
that serves the subdivision to the south. So we have a large elevation train -- or change  
through all that process, through that that we had to -- to work very hard to get this layout  
to work on that, and adding the cross street is a very big deal to us, probably a deal  
killer.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton, may I ask a question, or do you have  
more? I'm asking you. Do --  
MR. STANTON: I don't, no.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: So my question is, I would not have been surprised, given  
what you said about elevation and topographical issues, if there had been a design  
adjustment request or a waiver or something like that. Was that discussed at all?  
MR. HARRINGTON: We overlooked the need for that on the 600 feet.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Fair enough. All right.  
MR. HARRINGTON: If it is needed.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions for this speaker, and then we'll let Mr.  
Zenner interject with what he's found. Any other questions for this speaker?  
Commissioner Williams?  
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm just wondering what -- I'm following the topographical lines on  
the -- the north part of the site, but as it disperses, it looks like it becomes more shallow.  
I assume it's -- it's higher on the -- the site, for the portion of the site next to Creasy  
Springs Road and as it goes down to the creek. So I'm assuming that it's -- it's steep in  
the north and it kind of becomes less steep as you get south, but still is higher on the  
west than it is on the east. Is that right? Because the lines get kind of blurred in the  
midst of the lines.  
MR. HARRINGTON: So when you look at the part that we are developing, you're  
correct. There is a ridge that -- that our -- that western road that we show that goes north  
and south, that's following the top of the ridge. That ridge comes to a small point farther  
north that is almost bluff-like as you come around the boardwalk off of Bear Creek. In fact  
that dark line that you see on -- reflected, that is the boardwalk portion of the -- of Bear  
Creek Trail that you see come up. The terrain then drops to the center of the property or  
to the edge of where we're proposing to develop, and then comes back up to another  
ridge, and that Lot 121, and then drops back off to Bear Creek again. Did I -- does that  
answer your question?  
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that was a -- yes. And this one, I guess, to follow up that is  
I'm just thinking about water on the properties, and I was looking specifically at some of  
the drainage lines that are in here and just curious if you could speak for a moment about  
the water management, if you've got, basically, a valley, it sounds like --  
MR. HARRINGTON: Yes.  
MR. WILLIAMS-:- that's being created.  
MR. HARRINGTON: So what our -- our intention is is to create a detention pond,  
actually most likely a wet -- an extended wet detention pond in the common area to the  
north, basically, in the big curve on the northern street, it would be directly north of that.  
And make that -- our vision is to make that a park-like atmosphere and have -- have --  
that's why we're going with the -- the wet detention so that we can make more like a  
pond. And some of that we'll be -- actually be dug in, and so it won't have a really tall  
dam associated with it. And that -- it allows us to keep as many trees as possible in that  
area. And then we have the tree preservation then that buffers -- the tree preservation  
common area lot that then buffers that area to the Bear Creek Trail. We've had  
discussions about the possibility of that tree preservation area going to -- to the Parks  
Department at some point, but there's -- that's been very informal. That's been mainly on  
our side where we're open to looking at, but we just haven't gotten that far.  
MR. WILLIAM: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions for this speaker? And we can all -- you  
would be willing to let us bring you back up at some point, I assume?  
MR. HARRINGTON: Absolutely. Yes, ma'am.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton, was that a hand or a scratch?  
MR. STANTON: I guess I'm really not clear on the answer. Are you willing to make  
a deal, a win-win, or do you want us to vote on what you've got on the books right now?  
MR. HARRINGTON: I guess I would like to hear some of your discussion before I  
answer that, and I'm not trying --  
MR. STANTON: Well, I don't want to discuss it if we can't make a -- can't make a  
deal, like, you're just, like, I don't have the latitude or the authority to make a move.  
MR. HARRINGTON: Well, I -- I don't have the landowner here to be able to make that  
deal right now, so I -- I can't -- I can't negotiate that completely. I can tell you what I  
know from the technical side of it, that it would be very difficult to make that work. We  
believe -- we brought forward the best possible layout for this type of -- type of tract. It  
satisfies a lot of -- a lot of -- a lot of things, and we did, we overlooked the block-length  
thing. I -- you know, that was overlooked on our part, as well as the review. But I don't  
think that would change the result if we had known it. We'd still be bringing forward this  
and asking for your approval.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: All right. Commissioner Carroll and then Commissioner  
Wilson.  
MS. CARROLL: I'm going to be honest. I -- in a lot of ways, I love this plan because  
it meets a lot of the needs that we're hoping to see in applications. Walkability is  
important to me, and it's a problem here. And I guess what I want to get a feeling from  
you is because we haven't seen the topography here and I don't know what your  
constraints are. Is it equally impossible to build a sidewalk connection as it would be --  
MR. HARRINGTON: As a connection?  
MS. CARROLL: -- for a road? What's the grading like for a sidewalk or a path?  
MR. HARRINGTON: It would be -- it would be more possible to do that because you  
don't have some of the curvature requirements that you have with a street.  
The -- the problem that we would have to fight is with the ADA standards, and as you pull  
away from -- from the public rights-of-way. As -- you just -- you're shaking your head, and  
I'm asking -- that's, you know --  
MS. CARROLL: A resident expert on the ADA standards.  
MR. HARRINGTON: Okay. Well, my understanding is when you pull out away from  
the right-of-way, the sidewalk is going to be steeper than the -- than what would typically  
be for five percent for a non-ramp or eight and -- one to twelve in a ramp situation. We'll  
be steeper than the one to twelve, but because we're following the sidewalks as -- as is or  
following the roadway, they meet the public rights-of-way access guidelines. As soon as  
we pull that away from the road, then we lose that interpretation that the PROWAG or the  
public rights of way gives, unless you know another connection -- another solution to that.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: My instinct is saying let's follow this with Commissioner Loe, and  
then if we haven't addressed my thought, I'll come back to that.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Go ahead.  
MS. LOE: I was just going to comment on accessibility. So generally the  
requirement is to have an accessible route --  
MR. HARRINGTON: Okay.  
MS. LOE: -- to features or amenities, but not every route needs to be accessible.  
So if you can get them -- and sometimes when there is geographic issues, such as  
slopes, it may be that a vehicular route to get to a spot is acceptable due to the site  
conditions, but not every route needs to meet.  
MR. HARRINGTON: If -- if -- we're comfortable with that as a body, I -- we can make  
a connection to -- the sidewalk connection across there. I think that can be done, but it's  
going to exceed what we would normally accept as an accessible route. And if that's  
okay, then -- then I think that can be done.  
MS. LOE: So, yeah. I mean, the City or whatever governing body would be doing  
the ultimate interpretation, but as someone who does enforce accessibility for a different  
body, that is what we have followed.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: So I think that this all follows the same logic. Earlier you made the  
note that the owner is not here, so you're not able to consult with them. And it brought  
back to me the statement that Commissioner Loe made earlier, as well as the statement  
of Commissioner Stanton, which was are you willing to negotiate. And I think earlier,  
Commissioner Loe stated can we put in some type of walkability, which I think is this  
conversation right now. So even without having the owner here, is that something that  
you think would be acceptable?  
MR. HARRINGTON: I think if we -- if putting a pedestrian connection between the  
two roadways, I think we can find a way to make that work, assuming we don't have to  
meet the standard ADA guidelines.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Walters?  
MR. WALTERS: Could you maybe give us an example here in town of what the  
grade would be between these two streets if for such a connection, whether it's a  
vehicular one or a pedestrian one? I mean, you could say nine percent, but that doesn't  
mean as much as you say across the street -- some streets.  
MR. HARRINGTON: And -- and the nine percent is on the streets as they're -- as  
they're laid out, but if we can make a connecting street --  
MR. WALTERS: But if we were --  
NR, HARRINGTON: -- it would be steeper -- it would need to be steeper than that, I  
believe, so we have, I believe, the way we've designed it right now, we're about -- the  
street to the north is roughly 20 feet lower than the street to the south, which, I'm trying  
to do the math in my head. I'm sorry.  
MR. WALTERS: That's okay.  
MR. HARRINGTON: There's -- I think there's roughly 200 feet between those two  
streets, so that's -- that's pushing two percent, and that doesn't allow for any of the  
irregularities or if I'm remembering the 20 --  
MR. WALTERS: Perhaps the compromise might be if you would be -- rather than  
calling it a sidewalk or a paved sidewalk, be a trail, a trail that would connect the two,  
that you have more latitude in the construction. Obviously, it wouldn't be ADA  
accessible, but it would provide a means of access or -- between the two points, and it's  
easy for me to say this. Perhaps it could be by sacrificing one lot on each side, their  
back to each other, and running that trail through those two lots.  
MR. HARRINGTON: I think that's what we would have to do to do that, is probably  
sacrifice a couple of lots. And -- and that's -- yeah. That's -- that's really precisely what  
we would have to do. I -- I think running the trail through there has a lot more chance of  
being technically feasible from a grading perspective than a street does.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Williams?  
MR. WILLIAMS: I just have a technical question for Mr. Zenner. Is a trail or an  
interconnecting sidewalk necessary to be on the plat at this stage to approve it?  
MR. ZENNER: It would fall in a common lot. We would probably want it to be  
identified, but again, that could be a condition of approval to be corrected either as a  
technical correction to make prior to forwarding to City Council, so the intent of the  
Commission is met, or -- and that would be the preferred route -- or simply having it  
addressed as a part of the final platting because of what discussed here this evening. So  
either -- it would be advisable that we are going that direction, that is the direction, the  
sidewalk, I think, would have to be something that would be corrected as a part of the  
construction plans. Mr. Walters suggestion of a trail is probably a little bit more forgiving  
as it relates to the intent of what you're trying to achieve, and a little bit easier probably to  
accommodate at this stage in the planning processes of the development.  
MR. WILLIAMS: So just to make sure I understand, the answer is we would have to  
approve it with the condition that it be amended before it goes to City Council.  
MR. ZENNER: That is correct. And there is already a technical correction on this  
plat that is going to require correction before this document is forwarded, so this would be  
just one added correction or addition to be made.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any further questions? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON And you're cool with that, sir?  
MR. HARRINGTON: I am cool with that, yes.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I would like --  
MR. HARRINGTON: Thank you for asking that, by the way. I very much  
appreciate it.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Well, I would like to, at some point, also get to what Mr.  
Zenner said he had found because all of this may have been fixed if he found something  
very clever.  
MR. ZENNER: It depends on how you want to interpret my interpretation. So 29-5.1  
is the right section. It's our 29-5.1(C)(3)(F), which is connectivity, and this is in between  
figures 5.1-1 and 5.1-2, Provision (F) reads: Cul-de-sac and loop streets should not  
exceed 300 feet -- I believe this is what Ms. Loe was referring to -- in length, but may be  
approved in unique circumstances to avoid -- and I stress -- steep slopes, major creeks,  
floodplains, wetlands, and other sensitive environmental features. I would tell you that if  
our staff looked at that particular provision, that may be one reason that this particular  
alignment does not cause significant concern, and again, I would also conclude that the  
stub is being provided as a portion of access to the adjoining lot. If the stub were not in  
alignment with the northern street and it was just coming off of a loop, the loop would  
have been looked at as a loop exceeding the 300 feet due to the conditions associated  
with this property. The second provision that exists talks about block length, and it is in  
the same section, and it is (ii), so we go through connectivity and then blocks -- blocks  
shall have -- the director may approve exceptions to block depth and it also will apply, I  
believe, to block length, when we're trying to avoid major streets, railroads, waterways, or  
other sensitive environmental features, steep slopes and waterways. And there is  
significant discretion provided in both those, however, the solution that has been offered  
and has been agreed to, probably as a better solution in regards to the Planning  
Commission's intent and its interpretation of the Code. However, we carry a significant  
amount of latitude as we do our review, given all of the other factors that come into play  
when we are evaluating development plans. So chastise us as you may, we sometimes  
have to critically look at the actual land development pattern that is here and what is  
possible and what is plausible. And so when we look at the context of the Code, we  
often sometimes have to make those judgment calls, and that I -- again, I cannot speak  
to this specifically. Mr. Palmer handled this along with the rest of our review team. But  
what I could tell you is is if I looked at this and I were asked the question and given the  
explanation I was just given, I would probably be looking very hard at these two particular  
sections and suggesting that we have some latitude here by which to give a little bit of  
additional relief. What this particular experience has shown to me at least is that if a  
design adjustment had been presented that would have addressed this because there  
was maybe some vagueness in what was provided there, it is not nearly as clear as it  
probably could have been to say thou shalt have the authority. We could bring a design  
adjustment back to you all in the future. Again, this is a worthwhile project based on  
what we are trying to achieve generally from a citywide perspective. I think the solution  
that has been offered and generally agreed to by the applicant's design professional can  
be accommodated and would address similarly to how we have addressed other larger  
developments where we had longer street segments.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Mr. Zenner. Please stand by. I think we may  
need you again, but I would like to see if there's any other public comment, if that's okay  
with the other Commissioners. Thank you very much. Is there any further public  
comment on this case? Seeing none.  
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner discussion. So the way I see it, as Mr.  
Stanton said, according to whether or not our applicant -- what the applicant wants to do,  
we can either vote on it as is, we can table it and get a different plan brought back, or we  
can vote on it subject to adding a pedestrian connection between the two streets, and  
other minor technical corrections such that no block is less than 600 feet. The way I  
read that provision, because it specifies that the director has discretion on depth, but  
does not say that on length, I think this would have required a design exception or -- or  
waiver of some kind, whether it's here or BOA, but those are kind of what I think our  
options are. Depending on what the will of the Commission is, we'll bring the applicant  
back up and make sure they're okay with that plan, and then take a vote. So further  
Commissioner comments? Commission Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: I am -- I am fond of option three.  
MR. STANTON: I think the statutes leave wiggle room to make a win-win situation. I  
would lean on making that win-win possible tonight as long as the applicant is cool with it  
and send it up the street.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Commissioner Loe?  
MS. CARROLL: Oh, sorry. I'm also fond --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: I'm also fond of option three. I line the win-win. I like the  
walkability. I like the trails. I hate to lose a whole lot to that, let alone two lots. It's a big  
sacrifice, and that's coming from someone who really talks a lot about walkability. It  
meets a lot of goals. It is right next to Bear Creek Trail. Adding a trail there, if trails give  
you more latitude, echo Bear Creek and the surrounding terrain, it may be a future that's  
valued by people looking for housing in this area. I know -- I'm just putting this on the  
record. I know last time we went forward with this kind of strange scenario, it -- it was  
valued by the people who had that option presented to them and suggested to be  
marketed as a future of their -- of their development. That's all I have.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: I don't want to pigeon-hole the applicant, I just want the result.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes.  
MR. STANTON: So whatever the result is that creates access, that fits our  
needs, I'm cool with a trail, if a trail works. I'm kind of -- I'm cool, as long as the result is  
the access that my colleagues are looking for.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Williams?  
MR. WILLIAMS: I think I'm taking a different approach than the rest of the  
Commission from what it sounds like, and I'm asking you to educate me because I'm not  
-- I'm not fully understanding what we're trying to solve for. It seems like we're -- we have  
a basis in the Code, based upon the topography, to accept the road layout as it is. The  
fire department has reviewed it. I assume there's going to be sidewalks along which is  
actually what the petitioner made note of. So I'm not understanding the walkability  
aspect, I guess, of what we're trying to solve for on the walkability, in that someone could  
walk -- there's -- there's an ability in this neighborhood. There will be sidewalks. So I'm  
just trying to understand, what are we trying to solve for?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.  
MR. WILLIAMS: As I said, I'm asking you to educate me, because I'm not  
understanding what we're trying to solve here.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: For sure. Mr. Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Number 1, did you look at the topography both in the preliminary  
plat, and then there's a sheet on our -- actually, we've got two sheets that show the  
elevations. Okay?  
MR. WILLIAMS: Uh-huh.  
MR. STANTON: So the engineers in that opinion, his engineering staff had done the  
best they could to try to accommodate the sidewalks, the lots, and all that good stuff. A  
lot of our colleagues, myself included, have to think of the people that are not addressed  
here. If you were in a wheelchair or had some kind of disability that steep slopes or  
steep sidewalks or steep roads were a danger to you, then you would kind of see why we  
want to at least create one accessible route for those type of people, or you are isolating  
that particular group. Do you understand what I'm saying? So we're trying to -- we're  
trying to address that, if I'm correct, colleagues. If I'm not, straighten me out, but --  
MR. WILLIAM: Am I -- are we having a dialog, or am I -- are we all taking turns?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Right. Go ahead.  
MR. WILLIAMS: I just wasn't sure, honestly.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: No. No. Go ahead.  
MR. WILLIAMS: I want a point of order. I just didn't know if Mr. Stanton and I  
are having a dialogue.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: As long as our transcriptionist is okay. One at a time, don't  
speak over each other, she says. Go ahead.  
MR. WILLIAMS: So I understand that, but it sounds like from the topography, even if  
we're sacrificing lots, we're not going to get to a sidewalk that's going to be accessible  
with a wheelchair, so it's not solving that problem.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: So, yes. And the problem, as I see it, is this. We have a  
provision in our Code about block length, and we have a provision in our Code about the  
number of lots on a block that are accessible for whatever purpose, not handicap  
accessible, just the number of -- of lots on each block segment. Neither of those have  
the level of discretion that the cul-de-sac looped street has. We now have three  
provisions that need some kind of exception or waiver, whether that's at the staff level,  
this level, or Board of Adjustment. No exception has been brought forward. And so that  
has created a problem where we have a case that is essentially not complete because  
those provisions weren't addressed. If we let that go forward without officially addressing  
those provisions in any way, that creates problems of arbitrariness and, I mean, we don't  
really have precedents, but it creates a pattern and practice of not requiring plans to be  
fully compliant with the Code before they're brought forward and approved. That is my  
issue. I don't think it's a handicap accessibility issue. I think it's a question of if you live  
on Lot 50 and you want to get to your neighbor, you know, on Lot 104, you have to walk  
through people's private property to get there, or you have to go all the way around on the  
public sidewalk. So what we are proposing is some sort of cross between those two  
streets, so you have a shorter block length, which means you have fewer houses on each  
block, and it allows people to traverse within the neighborhood. Admittedly, doing that  
with something that is vehicular is impossible, it sounds like. Doing that with something  
that is a public trail, so you're not having to walk through people's private property is what  
we're suggesting as a compromise so that we've put forward a Code compliant plat or  
preliminary plat without overly burdening the developer. Does that make sense?  
MR. WILLIAMS: It does. And just so I understand, you're -- you're not accepting Mr.  
Zenner's interpretation of (F) as applying to this such that it could make this a U-shaped  
street that's longer than 300 feet?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: (F) does, but 29-5.1(c)(3) (ii) block length does not, and --  
MS. LOE: (E).  
MS. GEUEA JONES: -- (E) right above F does not.  
MS. LOE: He did not address (E), which does not have an exception, which is 30  
dwelling units without additional street connections. Unless otherwise permitted by this  
chapter, I searched the chapter, I did not find any exceptions identified for number --  
MR. ZENNER: Well, the --  
MS. LOE: of dwelling units.  
MR. ZENNER: So the exception that would otherwise be identified then is where we  
talk about. So that 30 ties into the 30 for the fire code, and the 30 for the fire code clearly  
indicates that the fire marshal and the fire department has the right to waive that  
standard. And as Mr. Harrington pointed out, their calculation, and this is based on for  
fire apparatus access, which is again where the 30 lots comes from, they have viewed  
this based on their code, and it meets -- otherwise meets their standards. So the  
connection between the 30 and 30, I think, is, at best, muddied. However, we have seen  
other -- and I shouldn't say that. I don't want to make that statement that, that we have  
probably seen other projects to where we have had over 30 lots or 30 lots or units, 30 -- I  
would say 30 lots on the street segment, that otherwise met the fire code, that we haven't  
had this same discussion on. And again, I think to the point that Mr. Williams is making,  
the criteria as it relates to the topographical issues and the -- you know, the  
topographical issues associated with this, and just the way that the street layout is that  
shows the northern street, basically, being what would be the continuation into Lot 121, if  
that wasn't as pronounced as being the through, but was more of a stub in between a  
loop, I don't know if we would have been -- we may have still had this conversation, but I  
think it definitely would have been that the relief would have been granted more directly  
under the condition that we have to approve the length of the loop street being longer than  
300. Ultimately again, I think that the provision of what we're trying to create here is a  
superior way of addressing pedestrian connectivity. It may not address pedestrian  
connectivity fully in all respects of a pedestrian, because we do have the sidewalks that  
would otherwise be compliant with the code following the street road rights-of-way, which  
Mr. Williams is correct, as well. So in the absence of having a design adjustment before  
you as it relates to other aspects that you have identified this evening, the solution that is  
on the table that has been offered that the applicant needs to be called to consent to, I  
think, is your most correct action to take to address the issue that Ms. Geuea Jones has  
brought up, that we do not want to set -- just out of example that this is something that's  
acceptable to move forward with future planning.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner -- oh, sorry. Commissioner Williams, did you  
have more -- I know Commissioner Stanton has something he wants to say, too.  
MR. WILLIAMS; I was just going to say that if we assume that this is a U-shaped  
street or map provision, I do think it's sort of -- it would make it very interesting how that  
cross -- that street could continue, if, at some point in the future, it were to connect  
through, that would -- that would be very difficult to then continue to maintain that it was a  
U-shaped -- then you really would have a non-conforming street in Eliah. So if Ella did at  
some point, continue on, that does not look like any U-Shaped neighborhood. It looks  
like a very long Eliah Drive.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Which needs to be less than 600 feet to comply with the  
Code.  
MR. WILLIAMS: All right. Then I think all -- then I think the exception in (F) is no  
longer applicable, and then you're left with -- with (E) and the blocks --  
MR. ZENNER: The exception for the cul-de-sac length, then we do have an  
exception on street length that would end in a cul-de-sac, as well, based on topography.  
There's another one that's further up above (F).  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe has been very patiently waiting while we  
discuss, so we'll do that, and then Commissioner Stanton.  
MS. LOE: Thank you. I brought up the cul-de-sac merely because of the  
questionable development of 121, but it is the least of my concerns. I think the other two  
items are much more pertinent to our desires for how we want to see subdivisions  
developed. I appreciate Mr. Zenner's comments about 30 dwelling units being tied to the  
fire safety code. We do try to coordinate our requirements when we can, but I would also  
speculate that it's not the only requirement, otherwise, we would not have incorporated it  
into our subdivision code, we would have left it in the fire safety code only. And to that  
point, I want to point back, and Mr. Williams might appreciate this, that this body is also  
guided by the Columbia -- Columbia Imagined Plan, and the elevates in there which  
include building more walking and bike paths to compliment the trails and preserving the  
walking and biking amenities of the neighborhoods and community. And that was very  
much part of the discussion we had or included in the UDC development. This -- these  
are futures we want to see incorporated into the subdivisions. So I think that's part of the  
reason why we have multiple items identifying and limiting the length. Unlike Ms. Carroll,  
I think the designer can be very clever and not lose any lots and still accommodate this.  
I actually was a little encouraged to see that there could be an opportunity to add  
additional circulation because one of the conversations we've been having in our work  
sessions about small lots is that with the increase of density is that there's a lack of  
open space around the houses and connections. And we were setting a limit much lower  
than this for introducing some variety and some other amenities, and I see this as a sort  
of a test of that and an opportunity to -- I was happy to see our Code actually included  
something that incorporated some of what we've been discussing.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: I'm just going to reiterate that I think that the Code gives us latitude  
and gets people's brains moving. The engineer needs to sharpen his pencil and read his  
books a little bit, and figure out the solution, so you know that we want connectivity --  
pedestrian connectivity; am I correct? Or, Mr. Williams, we can vote it as it is and we  
lead the -- we see where we're looking. So if you want to put that man's project on there  
or we vote as it is, I'm ready. And I think it's not going to be the way that our applicant  
wants it to be.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner --  
MR. STANTON: So I think we have enough latitude to get what we want, and I  
think he'll be happy.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Walters, and then I think we may be ready to  
ask Mr. Harrington to come back up.  
MR. WALTERS: From my two bits is I've developed subdivisions for 30 years. I  
would have no problem approving this on the first right, but I don't have a problem. I  
mean, we're talking about 120 lots versus 122 lots. In the context of a whole subdivision,  
it's easy for me to say this, the owner is not here to yell at me, but I don't think losing  
those two lots is a big deal, and I think the connectivity would be easily achieved, but I  
hope people don't think that it's something that just everybody is going to be able to use  
because it will only be -- it'll be very steep. It'll be fun -- it will be a fun trail. It would be a  
fun trail, but it would be very steep, so --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: All right. Are we ready to ask Mr. Harrington to come back  
up? We will briefly reopen the public hearing for the applicant to weigh in.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Would you -- it sounds like we're -- well, we've listed the three  
options. What would you like us to do?  
MR. HARRINGTON: So my understanding of option 3 is that you basically condition  
approval on us making a pedestrian connection between the two streets, and we -- we are  
-- we'll work out whether we lose two lots or not. We'll have to -- we'll have to work  
through that, but we're -- we can do that.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Amenable?  
MR. HARRINGTON: Yes.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: All right. Thank you very much.  
MR. HARRINGTON: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: We will re-close public hearing.  
PUBLIC HEARING RE-CLOSED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I think we are close to ready, if someone wants to make a  
motion, or is there further comment? Commissioner Loe? And by the way, we're going  
to be looking at legal a lot during this to make sure we say it in a way that makes you  
happy.  
MS. LOE: Okay. In the case of 184-2024, Bennett Ridge Preliminary Plat, move to  
approve with technical corrections and the inclusion of a pedestrian connection between  
Ella and Eliah, so that no block is more than 600 feet long.  
MR. ZENNER: Block.  
MR. CRAIG: Can you cite the Code provision in compliance with that. I think that's  
the path of least resistance there and make additional comment.  
MS. LOE: No -- I can, except I just want to cite more than one. Okay. Because Mr.  
Zenner is correct, there are exceptions, and we're looking at a few code requirements in  
this decision. So I would just say that it's pursuant to the discussion based on UDC 29-  
5.1(3)(E) and (3) (ii).  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Oops.  
MS. LOE: Sorry.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: (c)(3)(E) and -- (c)(3)(i) (E) and (c)(3)(ii).  
MS. LOE: Correct.  
MR. CRAIG: Yeah. That -- that'll work.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes. All right. Moved by Commissioner Loe, seconded by  
Commissioner Stanton, with the changes accepted, as well. Does everyone understand  
the motion?  
MR. CRAIG: Actually, for the record, if we could just restate that as whole.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Sure. Do you want to do it, or do you want me to?  
MS. LOE: I can. In the case 184-2024, Bennett Ridge Preliminary Plat, move to  
approve the preliminary plat with technical corrections and pedestrian connection  
between Ella and Eliah, pursuant to the discussion based on UDC 29-5.1(c)(3)(i)(E), and  
(3)(ii).  
MR. CRAIG. That will work. Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. Is there any discussion on the motion?  
Commissioner Williams?  
MR. WILLIAMS: I will vote for it because I like the plat, but I think that we've actually  
created a confusing record because a sidewalk trail, I don't see how that satisfies being --  
meeting these two requirements that we just cited. So I feel like we're doing some -- a bit  
more form over substance here, but if it's understood that we are, in this instance,  
deeming a trail or sidewalk to meet the requirements of a block intersection or a  
separation of houses, then as long as that is understood.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good. Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: In our collective wisdom, the alternative would have been we throw it  
back for a design adjustment, which costs the owner more money, that engineer has to  
go back, resharpen his pencil, redraw this stuff, go in front of another Commission,  
hopefully get the design adjustment, and come back. We're like a whirlwind to push it  
forward as it within the powers that we have at this body so that the applicant can move  
forward with us being satisfied at the same time.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none.  
Commissioner Carroll, when you're ready, may we have a roll call.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.  
Geuea Jones, Ms. Wilson --  
MR. CRAIG: I'm sorry to interrupt. I don't know that -- our court reporter alerted me  
to the fact that we don't -- I don't think we got a second on that motion.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I'm sorry. It was Commissioner Stanton. I don't think it was --  
MR. STANTON: Seconded and accepted the amendments.  
MR. CRAIG: And then -- okay. Thank you.  
Roll Call Continued:  
Voting Yes: Mr. Walters, Ms. Loe, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Williams, Ms. Carroll.  
Motion carries 7-0.  
MS. CARROLL: We have seven to approve.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City  
Council. Thank you very much, Mr. Harrington, for working with us. All right. Moving on.  
move to approve with technical corrections and the inclusion of a pedestrian  
connection between Ella and Eliah, so that no block is more than 600 feet long  
pursuant to the discussion based on UDC 29-5.1(c)(3)(E) and -- (c)(3)(i) (E) and (c)(3)  
(ii).  
7 - Loe, Stanton, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Wilson, Williams and Walters  
2 - Placier and Baysinger  
Yes:  
Absent:  
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS  
Case # 177-2024  
A request by Jessica Yankee (agent), on behalf of Bruce M. and Deborah  
L. Polansky (owners), for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the  
existing single-family dwelling at 400 Clinkscales Road to be used as a  
short-term rental for a maximum of 210-nights annually, pursuant to Sec.  
29-3.3(vv) and Sec. 29-6.4(m) of the Unified Development Code. The  
0.11-acre subject site is located at 400 Clinkscales Road and is zoned R-2  
(Two-family Dwelling).  
MS. GEUEA JONES: May we please have a staff report?  
Staff report was given by Mr. Pat Zenner of the Planning and Development  
Department. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow 400  
Clinkscales Road to be operated as a short-term rental for a maximum of 210 nights  
annually, subject to maximum occupancy and final compliance reviews being completed  
by the City's Housing and Neighborhood Services Department following City Council  
action.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Mr. Zenner. If -- before we go to questions for  
staff, if any of our fellow Commissioners have had conversations with parties outside of a  
public hearing, please disclose so now. Seeing none. Any questions for Mr. Zenner?  
Seeing none. We will open the floor to public hearing.  
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Please come forward, state your name and address for the  
record. Six minutes for the applicants or a group, three minutes for an individual.  
MS. YANKEE: Thanks so much. Good to see you guys again. My name is  
Jessica Yankee; I live at 17 West Parkway, and I'm here on behalf of 400 Clinkscales. I -  
- as the first person to do this, I wasn't sure what you guys wanted. I do have a little bit  
of detail about the property if you are interested. So the Polansky’s did purchase this  
property in February 2022 for the intent Mr. Zenner mentioned. They have children and  
grandchildren here that they want to visit and not occupy their home, so they do come  
frequently to stay there, and they saw short-term rental as a opportunity to keep the  
house in order while they are not here. And they recruited me to come in and take care  
of the property while they are gone. To date -- so it has been operational since April of  
2022. We currently have never received less than five stars rating from any of our guests.  
We have a perfect five-star rating, no complaints, and to the questions about parking,  
again, no -- no complaints there from any neighbors. We do make it very clear in our  
check-in instructions regarding parking on the right, as well as we do actually have  
signage that shows to park on the right. And then in regards to the five unrelated, I don't  
think there's been a time we've ever had five unrelated guests. There's only three beds,  
so you can work that self out. But I'm just here to answer any questions you might have,  
as this is also your first time.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much, Ms. Yankee. Any questions? No.  
Thank you for -- my only question, you answered. I think when we said is it currently a  
short-term rental, we didn't mean a licensed one. We meant, like, was it operating under  
the non-enforcement kind of thing, so thank you for answering that question. I think that's  
all -- very good. Thank you very much.  
MS. YANKEE: Okay. Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any other members of the public here to speak on  
this case? Seeing none. We will close public hearing.  
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any Commissioner comments on the case?  
Commissioner Loe? Or not Loe. Commissioner Carroll -- other side.  
MS. CARROLL: Open this back up. I rather like this application. I -- I think that our  
Code does a good job at addressing concerns that we had. I don't see any neighbors  
here to complain. I think the surrounding area can support this. I -- I'm happy to see the  
first one go by, come and go without a room full of people. That makes me feel like we  
wrote something that's good and supportable. I'm looking at a statement in the staff  
report that I just -- I didn't want to go by without drawing attention to, and that is with  
respect to the goal of creating livable and sustainable neighborhoods, of the Columbia  
Imagined Plan Policy 1 would be fulfilled given that there is greater housing diversity and  
inclusivity of housing types within the existing residential neighborhood. It kind -- this  
statement kind of rubbed me the wrong way in the way that we're evaluating the plan  
because I don't see how this changes diversity of housing types. The same housing  
types that were available before are available now. There, perhaps, one fewer rental or  
one fewer long-term house, but I don't see a difference in housing types due to the STR  
market, and it's a concern of mine in the way that we address it going forward.  
Nonetheless, I like this application and I -- I'm prepared to support it, unless there are any  
other huge deal-breaking comments that I don't know about.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Commissioner Carroll. Any other comments?  
Seeing none. Would anyone like to make a motion? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 177-2024, 400 Clinkscales Road, STR  
conditional-use permit, I move to approve.  
MS. LOE: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Approval was moved by Commissioner Stanton, seconded by  
Commissioner Loe. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.  
Commissioner Carroll, may we have a roll call.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Ms.  
Geuea Jones, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Walters, Ms. Loe, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Williams, Ms.  
Carroll. Motion carries 7-0.  
MS. CARROLL: There are seven to approve, the motion caries.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City  
Council. We have one case remaining on our docket. I am not inclined to take a break,  
but if any of the Commissioners need to go, as long as we still have six on the dais, take  
a minute and come back, and we'll just take turns if we need a break. Is that okay with  
everyone? Yep. Excellent. Pushing forward.  
Move to approve.  
7 - Loe, Stanton, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Wilson, Williams and Walters  
Yes:  
2 - Placier and Baysinger  
Absent:  
Case # 183-2024  
A request by A Civil Group (agent), on behalf of Dan and Audrey Barraco  
(owners), seeking approval to rezone 4.82 acres from the R-1 (One-family  
Dwelling) district to the M-OF (Mixed Use - Office) district. The subject  
property is addressed as 4414 Smith Drive and is directly south of the  
intersection of Dayspring Drive and Smith Drive.  
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 denial of the M-OF zoning map amendment.  
Alternatively, if believed appropriate and supported by the applicant, the Planning and  
Zoning Commission could recommend approval to rezone the parcel to R-MF, which is  
consistent with the adjacent zoning, land use patterns, and Comprehensive Plan.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Before we go to questions for staff, if any of my  
fellow Commissioners have had contact with parties outside of this public hearing, please  
disclose so now. Seeing none. Are there questions for staff? Commissioner Williams?  
MR. WILLIAMS: If, as -- well, it's a two-part question. Whether it's zoned as M-OF  
or R-MF, currently there is no proposed development plan on the site. So if we rezone it,  
either of those two, does it have to come back before the Commission to build a 35-foot  
structure on the site?  
MR. KUNZ: If it -- if multi-family were accepted by the applicant, it has legal lot  
status and legal lot status would continue to be held if it stays within a residential zoning  
district. However, if it gets rezoned to mixed-use office, the applicant would be required  
to both preliminarily and final plat the lot before a building permit could be obtained.  
MR. ZENNER: And the final preliminary and the preliminary plat component of that  
would come back before this body, but it would be generally a technical review. If it were  
zoned R-MF, because that is a residential zoning district, it would be a direct submission  
for code compliance with the building code, which is also evaluated based upon the site  
design conditions that are established within our development code, so you would not  
see it as a residential development.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions for staff? Commissioner Loe?  
MS. LOE: Planner Kunz, I had a question about the fact -- the report identified that  
the owner has not identified any project. However, you -- the packet included  
communication from the neighbors which included a letter from the owner identifying a  
project for the house. So I just wanted to confirm with you that the proposal to build a  
second home was never mentioned in meetings with you?  
MR. KUNZ: It was mentioned, but in discussion with the applicant, I determined that  
that's not truly the rationale for the request for the rezoning, but that was the -- in the  
letter for the concept review, and I don't know if it was in the letter for the application for  
this rezoning, but, yes. They did state that that was the initial intent that has since been  
indicated that is not necessarily the rationale for rezoning to mixed-use office.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.  
MR. ZENNER: Ms. Loe, the applicant that wrote the letter that has been provided to  
the adjoining property owners is here. He can speak to that directly, as well as the agent  
who is representing the owner.  
MS. LOE: I think I was just interested in the discrepancy between staff not having  
been told of any project and the neighbors having been told of a project, so thank you for  
that clarification.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions?  
MR. WALTERS: I have a couple of quick --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Walters, go ahead.  
MR. WALTERS: Two quick questions. You're aware that -- do you know what the  
traffic count is for Scott -- for Smith Drive in this area?  
MR. KUNZ: I do not know the ADT at the moment, no.  
MR. WALTERS: How about do you have any comparison or estimates between the  
daily trips that would be generated by the R-MF plan versus an office plan?  
MR. KUNZ: I mean, it would depend on what they elect to construct there. I believe  
in the staff report, I included prospective trip counts for general office use contrasted with  
mixed use office or with multi-family development where multi-family development would  
generate more trips than a mixed use -- or than an office district -- office use would,  
excuse me. And I want to add that if I'm not mistaken, Smith's designation as a  
neighborhood collector means it's anticipated average daily trips would be somewhere  
between 1,500 and 3,500. If it exceeds that, I believe it would have to obtain major  
collector designation, but that is the rough ADT range that we're looking at with  
neighborhood collectors.  
MR. WALTERS: Neighborhood collectors. Okay. Thank you.  
MR. KUNZ: Correct. Yeah.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any further questions? Seeing none. We will open the floor  
to public comment.  
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Please come forward. Name and address for the record. Six  
minutes for the applicant or a group, three minutes for individuals. Here he comes.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I know that the Commissioners received copies of it by email.  
MR. GEBHARDT: Yeah.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes. Yes, we did. Sure. I was looking to see if it was  
attached to the staff report.  
MR. KUNZ: No. It would not have been.  
MS. CARROLL: It was sent after the staff report.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yes.  
(Off the record)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I will call us back to order. If you are ready, please continue.  
MR. GEBHARDT: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Jay Gebhardt; I'm a civil  
engineer and land surveyor with A Civil Group. I'm here tonight representing Dan and  
Audrey Barraco who own the property in question, and their son, Joe, is here to represent  
them. So I submitted this PowerPoint to you because of the time constraints and that,  
so I'm going to buzz through some of this pretty quick, but some of it I'm going to stop  
on. So, you know, Dan and Audrey have lived here since 1986, so for 38 years. And to  
kind of give you a context of what they -- when they moved out here, what was out here,  
and it was a gravel road, it was in the county, and none of the existing subdivisions  
around. One of the things I want to point out is -- is Dan and Audrey never opposed or,  
you know, was against any of this development occurring around them. They just saw it  
as progress and -- and things change. So going through time, we got The Hamlet being  
built, and in 2019, we have before Westbury was approved. And then when Westbury  
was approved, some of the things I want to point out that maybe David is not aware of  
and Pat is -- so the things and why are the existing things out there today, except for the  
Westbury Retirement Center. It's in yellow. But the 150 apartments and 20,000 square  
feet of retail, those plans are currently being worked on by Matt Kriete over at Engineering  
Surveys and Services for submittal this fall and construction in 2025. It's -- it is 150  
apartments. It's a four-story structure with retail on the main floor. Just below that, right  
across from our site, is an M-C lot that has a 10,000 square foot building that is -- has  
been submitted for a building permit. I don't know if the building permit has been issued,  
but it has been submitted for review. And then on the corner directly to the east of our  
property, there's been a concept review for a quick-serve restaurant. And when I looked  
at the plans, there was an arch on it, so I'm assuming it was a McDonald's, but I don't  
know that for a fact. And then, of course, we have the existing building that's in the two  
M-N lots and are vacant. So really the only vacant lot out here is that triangular piece on  
the very southeast corner. The rest of it is all spoken for and being actively developed.  
Buzz through these real quick. You know, the point of this slide is you can see this site  
from Scott Boulevard. When you're standing here where that says concept review for  
quick-serve restaurant, I mean, that's very visible from the property. Right across the  
street, we have that 10,000 square foot building, and then those 150 apartments and  
20,000 square feet of retail between us and the -- between that 10,000 square feet and  
the Moser's building. And then looking this way, you have the Westbury Retirement  
Community. This chart I don't expect you to read, but the point of it is is everything in  
yellow is allowed in both R-MF and M-OF. It is really the green highlighted items that are  
different, and I tried to make it bigger here. The other colors are either conditional uses or  
just not allowed in one or the other, but the greens are that. And really where we're  
headed with this is, you know, what -- what would we prefer to live next to. Would we  
rather live next to an office development that's there Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 5:00,  
or would we rather live against apartments. And that's -- the Barraco's didn't really have a  
say in how everything was developed around them, but -- and they're reacting to how it  
was developed. So -- but the basic reason that we disagree with staff on this is basically  
just the idea that we think the M-OF is a less intense use next to it. And part of the  
definition of M-OF basically says it is a transition zone between commercial. And keep  
in mind, we've got the highest commercial zone right across the street from us. And then  
there's been a lot of emphasis placed on Smith Drive being kind of a dividing or  
jumping-off point, and nothing south of Smith Drive that -- but this property is very similar  
To The Flats and to the Westbury where it is buffering single-family neighborhoods to that  
commercial area. So we don't think that is necessarily a good reason for not approving  
zoning here. Traffic is always a concern, but in this case, you know, we will have to do a  
traffic impact study. I can't imagine this property being developed in either R-MF or M-OF  
without a traffic impact study. This slide is basically to show you that, you know, we've  
got R-MF on the left and M-OF on the right. Everything is the same, and when you get  
down to the middle paragraph, it's a little confusing, but if I give up five feet of side yard,  
just five feet, I can go ten feet taller in R-MF, and I can be the same height as M-OF.  
And I don't know any developer who wouldn't make that decision. They would have  
another floor of -- of apartments or another floor of height by giving up five more feet. So,  
to me, from an engineering point of view, and development standpoint, I don't see a  
difference in the heights of this. What I do see is that the uses that we're talking about  
being allowed in M-OF that's not in R-MF would require a more substantial screening by  
the code, so we would have the ten-foot landscape buffer and the eight-foot-tall screening  
device, whereas, the apartments would only have a six-foot landscape buffer. And so,  
yes, we're asking for uses that are not residential, but we don't think they're that impactful  
to that neighborhood, and, in fact, we think it's less impactful. This slide was basically  
just to tell you what we've done. We reached out to the neighbors within 1,000 feet, had  
a meeting to -- four people showed up. And then we -- a month later, we had another  
meeting where we contacted just the neighbors that abut us because we felt they have a  
different perspective than the general neighborhood, and two people showed up to that.  
And I've kind of listed out what I thought their concerns were, but I'll let them speak for  
themselves because they're here tonight. And so really it's, like, why M-OF instead of  
R-MF? And it's basically because we think it's less intense use and a better neighbor to  
live against than that. And when I say this mixed use, I don't -- I don't see this as all just  
an office complex. I see it as truly a mixed use with apartments above and that. So  
David's slide that showed the building with -- the building which had apartments above  
and offices below I think is a really good example. It is three times smaller than the site,  
so maybe there will be some apartments on this and maybe there will be some of that,  
but it's -- we don't know. And then that's the other component of this that -- that people  
have been poking holes in is that, you know, why now? Why are we doing this? We  
don't have a developer in tow. The property is not for sale. Why are we doing this. And  
Joe has some -- some reasons for the family on this, but, basically, I -- I don't understand  
why we would penalize a landowner for wanting to do some planning by instituting zoning  
for his property just because he can't say where each building is going to be and where  
the parking is going to be and all that. I think that's -- if we really went through and we do  
some planning on this, is let's establish what that is. The family does not intend to sell  
this at this time. They want to live on the property. They want to age in place on the  
property. But setting this up is their most valuable asset, and setting this up so that it  
could be sold and sold quickly without a lot of ideas of what could or couldn't be there,  
and then having a say in how that -- what they think is what's best for the neighborhood  
that they've lived in for 38 years. There are neighbors in support. We had a petition sent  
around and now we had six signatures from owners on that in support. And then, you  
know, the staff is making a recommendation, and I really do think we're trying to put our  
best foot forward here to -- with the M-OF zoning. The neighbors don't agree, but -- so we  
want to -- we want to stick with that. We're not going to agree to go to R-MF at this point  
in time. So if anyone has any questions for me, I went through that pretty quick, but you  
guys have already seen most of it, if not all of it, so -- yeah, Anthony?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Excuse me.  
MR. GEBHARDT: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Sir, you know better.  
MR. GEBHARDT: Sorry.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton, would you like to ask him a question?  
MR. STANTON: Yes, I would, ma'am.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Please go ahead.  
MR. STANTON: That was going to be my question. Do you want to have a vote as  
is up or down --  
MR. GEBHARDT: Yes.  
MR. STANTON: -- or are you willing to negotiate? No negotiation, you want it as --  
as it lays?  
MR. GEBHARDT: Yeah.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Very good.  
MR. WALTERS: I have a question.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Walters?  
MR. WALTERS: Staff talked about some differences between what could happen  
after this meeting if it was multi-family versus office, and one of the things if it was an  
office use would be the requirement that a preliminary plat would come back. And on  
that preliminary plat, can you give some examples of the things that would be illustrated  
on it that might have a direct impact on the neighbors, such as lighting and landscaping  
and that sort of thing?  
MR. GEBHARDT: The preliminary plat, and then at least -- and I'll let staff address  
this because -- too, if they want. But, to me, it would address, like, access to Smith  
Drive, where driveways would be or where -- if there is a street extension into this, you  
know, where that would be. And, to me, the only place it can be is across from  
Dayspring Drive, but -- so, yeah. I don't see it -- especially if it's a one-lot subdivision, I  
don't see that there would be a lot of things addressed on there at that time that would  
answer questions, like, lighting or noise, traffic, that kind of stuff.  
.
MR. WALTERS: Would it show the landscape requirements, the setbacks and  
screening and so forth?  
MR. GEBHARDT: It would show the setbacks, I believe. No?  
MR. WALTERS: Okay.  
MR. GEBHARDT: We used to show the setbacks, not anymore, so --  
MR. WALTERS: All right.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Any other questions? I have a couple. Trying not to be  
pedantic or nit-picky, but in your slide, you say that the neighbors didn't realize there was  
no commercial activity in M-OF, and when you explained that to them, they were  
okay. I think what you're trying to say is that there is no, like, retail or that sort of thing.  
But these would be commercial uses, potentially?  
MR. GEBHARDT: Right. So you can have a personal service. You could have a  
salon here, things like this.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Doctor's office?  
MR. GEBHARDT: Doctor's office, yeah.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah.  
MR. GEBHARDT: When I think of commercial, I think of retail, so that's my fault.  
That's just the way my brain is wired.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Sure. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page.  
The other thing is you said they have no current intention to sell, but they want to be able  
to sell quickly. So -- and maybe this is a better question for -- for Mr. Barraco. Explain  
that contradiction to me.  
MR. GEBHARDT: So without getting into too much of the family's business, the --  
Audrey has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's. And if she needs long-term care, there's  
no -- there's no money for that except this property.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. So the intent is --  
MR. GEBHARDT: To go ahead and get it zoned, and then be able to quickly sell it  
without having to have a fire sale.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Got it. I think that's all I have. Any last questions? No?  
Thank you very much.  
MR. GEBHARDT: Thank you,  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Next person to speak on this case from the public, please  
come forward. And because we do broadcast and it's helpful for our transcriptionist,  
make sure you're speaking into that mic. Thank you.  
MS. GERMAIN: Hear me okay? Okay. My name is Sonya Germain; I live at 4411  
Sussex Drive, so to the south of the property in question. I have lived there for ten years  
with my husband and our two children. They're eight and eleven now. When we first  
purchased our home, you know, we've seen pictures of what it used to look like. We had  
conversations about what could that be in the future. I think that, you know, we assumed  
future changes would occur. We're supportive of that, but I don't think we assumed that it  
would be rezoned commercial when it's surrounded by a lot of R-1 development. And  
then, you know, I kind of addressed the second home on the property and said maybe  
that wasn't the real reason, but that -- that was in the communication to the neighbors,  
and I did re-read the application. It was in the application too as the -- the, like, primary  
purpose for the rezoning. I've worked at Veterans United in the mortgage industry for 13  
years, so I don't think that it's necessary to rezone to commercial for building a second  
home. But all that aside, again, there's no plans to develop or sell. That means that we  
don't know what it's going to be. And as someone who is going to continue to live there,  
that's the current plan, I am concerned with all of the different potential options and that  
there is no direction or anything for us to really argue against. You know, there's no set  
thing that says that an office building has to be Monday through Friday, 9:00 to 5:00. A  
hair salon is not going to operate in those hours, so I think that it's a little bit misleading  
to -- to, you know, get the support of the neighbors by making generalizations and saying  
things that may not be true. And then the other thing that I just want to say is that our  
property has a downward sloping from our backyard to our house, so in terms of, like,  
building heights and what we have to look at, our privacy in own home, that's an issue for  
me personally. You know, we live there, our kids play outside. We have barbecues and  
family things going on, and when you buy a home in an established residential area, you  
kind of have that expectation that you're going to have some privacy in which to conduct  
your business, and I don't personally feel like, you know, a four-story apartment building  
with -- I don't know -- balconies that face onto my property that removes a lot of my  
privacy, as well as the potential light pollution, just a lot of unknowns that -- that I don't  
feel like have been really addressed. And in summary, I don't have any personal  
disagreement with the family. They've been really good neighbors for the ten years that  
we've been there. We've had zero issues. I come from a farm family myself, so I  
understand the desire to maximize your property value and your family inheritance. I  
really do get that. I'm just concerned that this opens up the potential for lots of different  
use cases that just really aren't appropriate and would be an unfavorable change for the  
residents of the area. So thank you for your time.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. If you would give us just a moment. Questions  
for this speaker? I have a couple of questions.  
MS. GERMAIN: Sure.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: In your mind's eye, you said that you were talking about, oh,  
what could that be some day. What is your best-case scenario?  
MS. GERMAIN: I think that the -- the way that when my husband and I bought this  
property, we assumed that what would happen would be the parcel would get divided into  
smaller parcels and it would be either single-family or maybe, like, duplexes that would  
be put there some day. I think that would be the ideal use case. I -- I -- from listening to  
the other commentary today, I understand that there's a desire for community, you know,  
having different residential options within Columbia, so I definitely understand that. I, you  
know, wouldn't be opposed necessarily to other options, I would just want to know  
exactly what they were before I took a stance.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. I think that -- I think that answers my question. I  
understand the concern about hypotheticals. I guess my second question would be, like,  
if you were told this is going to be an office complex with apartment buildings, and you  
knew that was what it was going to be, would you still be opposed to the change?  
MS. GERMAIN: I would want to understand the, like, building height and -- and what  
the buffering would look like. I think that would be the biggest deciding factor for me.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner  
Williams and then Commissioner Carroll.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Just to make sure I visualize it. You talked about the slope, but I'm  
not sure that I quite picked up on which way your yard slopes. I see there's a fence, at  
least when I look on the Google Maps.  
MS. GERMAIN: Yeah, absolutely. There's the fence. We have a two-story home.  
And, basically, from our -- our master bathroom window, which is in the back of our  
house, on the second floor, you can look straight over and see the Barraco home today,  
but it's -- it's set back enough from the fence line that there's no privacy issues, but that's  
the kind of visibility line.  
MR. WILLIAMS: So the -- so looking straight out from the back door of your house,  
there -- it's a --  
MS. GERMAIN: Yeah. It's just an upward slope.  
MR. WILLIAMS: It's uphill?  
MS. GERMAIN: Yeah.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I don't have any other questions. Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Carroll?  
MS. CARROLL: This isn't exactly on the table, but how do you view multi-family  
development?  
MS. GERMAIN: In general, I'm not opposed to it, and I definitely understand -- you  
know, I work in the mortgage industry, I understand that housing is becoming more and  
more unaffordable, and I don't -- I don't have any desire to, like, exclude people from  
having an affordable residence.  
MS. CARROLL: Would you find an apartment building preferable to an office use?  
Well, I guess it's not an office use -- to an M-OF, given what you've seen on the list?  
MS. GERMAIN: Okay. Again, I think it would depend on the -- on the details on  
how, like, how the components of the building are -- are they facing the road, are they  
facing my house, a mixture of each. I know I probably can't decide. I'm -- this is  
definitely my first foray into anything like this, so I'm not -- I'm not pretending to have all  
the answers or know everything, but --  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah. I understand. You may get to see more details for an M-OF  
zoning before the final approval than you would for a residential zoning. I'm putting that  
out there, so you have all the information.  
MS. GERMAIN: Yeah. Okay.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Any other questions? Thank you very much. The  
next person to speak from the public?  
MR. BEMAN: My name is Dave Beman; I live at 4800 Greenwich Circle. These  
comments are about the 4415 case, obviously. I strongly oppose a rezoning to either  
M-OF or R-MF. The question was asked earlier what would you prefer? R-1. Put  
another subdivision in there. That's what is consistent with the neighborhood. I feel a  
little bit at a disadvantage here because we listened to an extensive presentation, a  
number of points that I would have disagreed with, a number of points I disagree with Jay,  
but I get three minutes. So how do you respond to that when you could write a position  
paper on that. Due to the blanket nature of the request, which I don't understand why  
we're trying to rezone without a proposal, I would want to see a proposal.  
And the previous meetings here, it was about we want to rezone this property because  
we want to do thus and such. That gives people who might oppose it a chance to say  
something. Right now, we're put in the position of, hey, we want to rezone this to  
something, and when it's pitched, it's pitched as if, oh, we'd be -- it would be this little  
unobtrusive thing, like, a little office. But there's no control over that, once you put the  
zoning and you have the allowed uses, it's done. I'm not sure the zoning change is  
needed at this time. There's still some available commercial space north of Smith. Did I  
just hear correctly that those multi-family dwellings already have 150 units in them to the  
north of Smith? Maybe that's enough. I've heard discussion about the buffer. Smith is  
the buffer between that area and the R-1 homes. I say if you want to do something with  
that property south of Smith, put a subdivision in there and have it be more R-1 housing.  
I do believe that there are certain things that can accrue to an area when you put  
multi-family in it, and this is not trying to be politically incorrect or anything else, but you  
have to consider that if you have higher population density housing, sometimes increased  
crime comes with that. Sometimes there are additional personal safety concerns.  
There's potential traffic congestion. And as you add more people traveling east-west on  
Smith, you've got a congestion issue. But then I hear the presentation, well, you know,  
the traffic count would be high enough so you'd have to do a traffic study. Well, to me, I  
don't mean to sound too jaded, but it sounds like we approve this, we create a congestion  
problem, then we do a traffic study, then we add a traffic light or a roundabout or  
additional lanes on Smith so that we can mitigate the new congestion that we introduced.  
And, to me, I am concerned. Okay. Let's say you build a high-density apartment unit  
and congestion increases. You add a traffic light, you add a roundabout. That decreases  
the access efficiency for all the neighborhoods to the west of that property. When I go to  
get out, I'm sitting at a roundabout and a traffic light, or I'm sitting at two traffic lights to  
get out to Scott Boulevard, so there is an impact on the people even if you do a traffic  
study and put these other fixes in. So to reiterate, I would think that the buffer would be  
Scott, and that the reasonable thing to do would be to say let's do this R-1. So I'm  
against either M-OF or R-MF.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you.  
MR. BEMAN: Regarding the question you raised about the letter, yes. The initial  
time I became aware of this was, hey, we want to care for our parents. We want to build  
a second home on the property. I met with Jay and Joe at A Civil Group for two hours,  
and we discussed that. And the real crux of the issue was, no, that's not really it,  
because we can't really afford to do anything with the property. The real issue is we want  
to increase the zoning now so that the increased value of the property is ours rather than  
some future developer. Now I don't have a problem with that. It's everybody's right to try  
to maximize the value of their property. No beef with that. Be straight with me, and also  
there is a cost that comes to the rest of the neighborhood if you do that. So my  
contention would be it's -- it's certainly their right to want the increased value and I don't  
begrudge that. But you have to weigh that and, in my opinion, it's not sufficient  
justification for new zoning that may have a negative impact on the existing property  
values of everybody else. And that's an issue -- and you guys fight with that all the time.  
I don't have to tell you. So anyway that's -- those are my points. I wish you gave people  
more time to oppose, and I probably stepped over my time, so I'll be quiet.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you very much. Are there any questions for this  
speaker? Commissioner Williams?  
MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't catch it quickly enough. What street do you live on?  
MR. BEMAN: I live on Greenwich Circle, so we're -- we're, if you look on that map,  
you can't quite see it. You exit Smith on Somerset, and you go south, and you'll see  
Greenwich Circle cutting off to the west. It’s not on that map that I see. It would be a  
little to the left. I think you're about to get it. Okay. Well, I can't -- I don't have a pointer.  
Yeah. I think -- there we are. The little arrow, move the arrow up and to the left.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Okay.  
MR. BEMAN: Oops. Right there. Right about there.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay.  
MR. BEMAN: Okay. So the influence for me is I come off Somerset, I turn right  
heading for the light at Scott. So any increased congestion or a roundabout or another  
traffic light, that's something I have to move through in order to exit to Scott Boulevard.  
So -- and they're currently still building R-1 to the west. All those houses aren't even  
done yet. So the congestion is already going to be increasing because the further west  
you go on Smith Boulevard, you can drive through those areas and they're building  
high-end homes and lots of residential area there now. There's also empty land that I  
suspect at some future point will become additional R-1, which means more and more  
people to the west trying to get through that choke point where this site resides.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Do you have any follow-ups, Commissioner?  
MR. WILLIAMS: I don't. Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any other questions for this speaker? Seeing  
none. Thank you for being here tonight.  
MR. BEMAN: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Are there any further speakers on this case, please come  
forward.  
MS. THOMAS: Hello. I'm Denise Thomas at 4707 Sussex Drive, so just up the road  
from Sonya. I don't really have a lot to add. I think Dave summed it up really, really well.  
Just that I agree that M-OF and R-MF seems a bit much right there since there are  
people whose literal backyards are going up the hill into this property, like, Sonya's, and  
her neighbors, and she probably would prefer to keep it R-1 or R-2 if possible, and  
especially if there is more apartments already in the works right across the road, that  
seems like it would probably satisfy the hope for the node that they're looking for for  
those commercial areas there. That's all. I just wanted to say my peace. Oh, and I  
heard something about six people signing a petition in support, but I have to say that  
letter they sent was very misleading. A lot of my neighbors -- I know we've touched on  
this. Sorry. I'm not going to pound it, but a lot of my neighbors, when they first read it,  
thought that they were just wanting to build another home, and that's not what they want  
to do at all, and I feel like that was probably where those signatures came from, but that's  
all I've got. I'm sorry.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Any questions for this speaker? Seeing none.  
Thank you.  
MR. WILLIAMS: No. I have one.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Oh, sorry. Commissioner Williams?  
MR. WILLIAMS: And what do you envision from the standpoint of your location of  
your particular property being the biggest impact to you if this rezoning were approved?  
MS. THOMAS: For me, traffic. It's -- but that's -- again, we don't know what's going  
to go there. It's -- there's going to be more traffic no matter what. But if it goes to R-MF  
or M-OF, it's going to be probably a multi-family home that goes in there, and that's going  
to be a lot more traffic than there would if it was duplexes or single-family residences,  
which is what it currently is, which, I mean -- that's all. That's all. Traffic for me.  
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Last call. Seeing none. Thank you very much. Next member  
of the public?  
MR. BARRACO: My name is Joseph Barraco; I live at 602 Nancy Drive, and I  
appreciate guys' time for this evening, and giving us the opportunity to speak even if it is  
three minutes. Appreciate it. Me and my family have been proud residents of Columbia  
since 1983, and over those past 40 years, we've seen our beloved city grow and evolve  
into a vibrant community. When we first moved here, actually, you showed some of  
those images, our property was a serene haven. We were able to ride our horses around.  
We heard coyotes every evening, but all good things must come to an end. As Columbia  
has progressed, so too has the development around us, and throughout this  
transformation, our family has consistently supported progress, always aiming to  
contribute positively to our city's growth. We never stood in the way of development,  
understanding that change is inevitable and necessary for a thriving community. My  
parents who are now aging wish to continue living on their property. However, with the  
extensive development around us, we frequently receive inquiries from developers  
interested in purchasing the land. So the few city officials that I have spoken to have  
indicated that our property’s current R-1 zoning is unlikely to remain unchanged as the  
city continues to expand. With that in mind, our family engaged A Civil Group to assist  
us in rezoning our property to M-OF. This change will not only align with the surrounding  
developments, but also provide our family with the financial means to afford any future  
care my mother may require. We do not want to be in a position where we must sell our  
property at the lowest price due to some time constraint or family issues. We believe in  
the principle of reaping what you sow. Our family has sowing seeds of progress and  
support for our community, and now we seek to harvest those efforts by being  
responsible stewards of our land. Rezoning to M-OF will allow us to respond  
appropriately to the evolving landscape around us, while ensuring we can provide for our  
family's needs. I appreciate you guys considering this request, and if you have any  
questions, I’m here.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Are there any questions for this speaker?  
Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Some of the speakers question your motives or your initial intent.  
MR. BARRACO: Yeah.  
MR. STANTON: Can you speak on that?  
MR. BARRACO: Yeah. I think Sonya sort of mentioned it, well, I think, you know,  
being our first foray. We're not developers. Right? Coming into this, I think that there  
was -- you know, our last resort. It is my wife and my wife and I. She's an amazing --  
she's an amazing giving incredible sacrificial woman, and our two families, we would be  
the people that would care for them. Both my sisters are gone, and so if we ever come to  
a place where we're not able to purchase a home that abuts into it, we're not able to rent  
one of the homes that is even closer than where we are. Like I mentioned, I'm on Rollins  
and Fairview now, so we're relatively close. But if things come to -- to where they  
actually need care and we need to be closer, we wanted to be prepared for that. In  
hindsight, it's 20-20. What we should have done is just spoke about the things that --  
things that we knew we needed to solve for, not things that potentially could be. But  
hindsight, 20-20. I feel like we've been, you know, communicating with the neighbors as  
early as possible, as wide as possible, as upfront and honest as -- as we can be, and  
that's why we've had all these opportunities to reach out and speak.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Go ahead. Commissioner Williams?  
MR. WILLIAMS: First, I want to commend you for your desire to take care of your  
parents. It's applaudable. My question relates to -- and I apologize, I'm having a -- it's  
getting late --  
MR. BARRACO: Fair enough.  
MR. WILLIAMS: -- so I'm having a hard time remembering what I want to ask  
everyone. What I'm -- you mentioned in the letter and here now that you have received  
inquiries or proposals from developers in the past, and I am curious, without asking you  
to divulge any specific information about who or -- you know. But what kinds of  
development proposals were presented to your family?  
MR. BARRACO: My -- my -- since we have been here for many years and been sort  
of advocates within -- within the community, my dad has relationships and my mom for --  
for decades. And so oftentimes, some of those people are developers within this -- within  
the community currently. They would do things that would be able to be approved in  
R-MF or M-OF, typical sort of office, apartment buildings that around here in town.  
Probably three different people have reached out to my dad, specifically having  
conversations about that. And that's the type of business -- that's the type of business  
that they do.  
MR. WILLIAMS: So just to follow up more specifically, did you get an idea from  
them about -- so these would be multi-story -- were all of the proposals to you multi-story  
buildings?  
MR. BARRACO: No. No. I'm -- I'm a little hesitant to even have any of these  
conversations because I don't even want to ever have to do this, you know. So, you  
know, you keep people in the -- in the Rolodex or at least around so when that time  
comes, there's people that you can reach out to, but I have not allowed them to even put  
forward with, hey, here's what I was thinking kind of a deal, or maybe it could be this or  
that, that's not -- that's not what's -- what we're to focus on right now.  
MR. WILLIAMS: So what is the -- I understand what you're trying to do because I  
think many of us have -- have experienced the stage of life in various ways, seen it in  
various perspectives that you're -- you're working through right now. So I understand that  
there seems to be a tension between we want to maximize the value of the property to be  
able to take care of parents, but at the same time, parents still want to live on the  
property.  
MR. BARRACO: Uh-huh.  
MR. WILLIAMS: So what I'm trying to see is that that creates a tension that has  
been mentioned by many of those speakers --  
MR. BARRACO: Uh-huh.  
MR. WILLIAMS: -- because it creates an unknown. So where --  
MR. BARRACO: Tension of unknowns is what I'm living through every day. And so  
when -- when you see -- when you see a path forward, it seems like you're going fine and  
then things drop and you're at a completely different level. Well, if we know that that's  
how -- how this moves forward, we need to be prepared as best we can so that if and  
when that reverse of a plateau, whatever that drop is, hits to where, hey, we can't handle  
this ourselves. There needs to be full-time care. If we don't do this now, then those  
same developers who have time, you know, have connections, then they come to us, and  
it's not the same conversation. You know, then it is us during a spot where you have to  
be very quick or you have to take less money that you know it's not worth. And that's --  
and that's not a good steward of the land. If you see that that is what's coming forward,  
the unknown, you have to do your best to plan for it. And so that's why as you sort of  
see those things, it's sort of, okay, what are the steps, who do I need to reach out to, and  
that's how we -- we do -- A Civil Group, what is the appropriate thing for this zoning, and  
they sort -- it's been in insane education.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Stanton, go ahead.  
MR. STANTON: I understand your motives. The problem I have, they want us to vote  
on this up or down as it is.  
MR. CRAIG: Commissioner Stanton, can you speak into the microphone so we can  
get this on the record. Thank you.  
MR. STANTON: They want us to vote on it as is. No wiggle room. They want it  
either M-OF or nada. So the argument of maximizing the value of your land and all of  
that, I understand that argument. A kick up to what we may offer is not on the table  
because what we represented was vote on it as it is, which means there's a bigger  
picture, and it's hard for me to -- it's hard for me to grasp your full argument without  
saying if I'm -- if I'm really worried about X, Y, Z in the future, I'm going to leave my -- leave  
me out. There is no out right here. The guy that's representing you right now wants us to  
vote on this right here.  
MR. BARRACO: Yeah.  
MR. STANTON: And so the story gets a little sticky --  
MR. BARRACO: How so?  
MR. STANTON: Because -- because if it was all about maximizing or at least  
increasing the value of your potential property, I wouldn't back myself into a corner to say  
ride or die, because if you're residential now, and, yeah, I might shoot for the moon, if I  
miss, I'll be amongst the stars. Have you ever heard that before?  
MR. BARRACO: I have.  
MR. STANTON: What we're presented to right now, and what the guy that's  
representing you right now said is M-OF or die. That kind of taints your story. It kind of  
feels like -- I hate to say this, but it would be, like, we give you M-OF and then all of a  
sudden, miraculously, somebody has a heck of a deal. And then tomorrow, you're a  
millionaire.  
MR. BARRACO: Who?  
MR. STANTON: I don't know. I'm just saying that the stars could align tomorrow,  
and we give you M-OF, and then tomorrow you just get a heck of a deal at M-OF, this --  
this drops from the sky and you're a millionaire tomorrow. Oh, my gosh. I was lucky.  
That's kind of how I'm feeling. And I'm going to vote on M-OF or die. That's what was  
presented to us.  
MR. BARRACO: And the way I understand it is, you present one thing. Is that how  
you come and you present one thing.  
MR. STANTON: Did you listen to the last case? There's always a deal to be made.  
MR. BARRACO: Yeah. Well, because this is my first -- first time ever doing  
something of this, you know, you don't know what you don't know, and so you have to  
trust the counsel that you bring on. And so I have to -- I have to trust in A Civil Group  
because they've come -- you know, because of -- I have to trust them because I don't  
know this world, Anthony.  
MR. STANTON: Okay. Okay.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: So we won't take questions from the audience. So I'm going  
to ask this question. I suspect you won't answer it. But I suspect I'll be able to figure  
out the answer to it. Are you in negotiations for a sale option should your parents leave  
the house?  
MR. BARRACO: No.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Because that is what this sounds like. It sounds like that's  
why you want specifically M-OF. You rejected M-F -- R-MF. You haven't talked about  
M-N.  
MR. BARRACO: Yeah.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: You haven't talked about M-C.  
MR. BARRACO: Yeah.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: You want something very specific.  
MR. BARRACO: Yes.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: That sounds like you've been in negotiations on an option.  
MR. BARRACO: Okay. Do you want me to answer?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Please.  
MR. BARRACO: I've taken counsel. When I -- when I -- when I reach out to many  
people, there were people at Plaza Realty that, oh, my gosh, that will be commercial in a  
heartbeat. No. No. No. You can get it zoned open and all this. There was plenty of  
people that told me commercial and M-N is exactly what you can do. You've got  
commercial across the street, too. That's a no-brainer. I hear that from many people.  
When I interviewed the people to work with, A Civil Group and Jay Gebhardt specifically,  
he was the only person that followed up the community around that. We've lived in that  
community our whole life, and so, when he broke down the different things, like, hey,  
there's only -- there's only a reasonable height that you're going to be able to raise this to,  
especially without any plans. And so his counsel was if I was a neighbor, I wouldn't want  
a -- I wouldn't want people coming around constantly. I would want a further buffer. And  
so I brought that to my parents. I said these are the two things that Civil Group  
mentioned, and that's what we -- that's what we moved forward with. So it is strictly on --  
on counsel -- from my counsel to say, hey, what's realistic, because this is very rare.  
You're not coming to the Council with plans. It's going to be different. And so you need  
to do something that, you know, you're focused on the Code. This is reasonable for the  
area that is possible to get because this is -- yeah.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I think that, you know, we get a lot of zoning changes without  
plans, unless there's a replat. The issue here is you're asking for a pretty dramatic  
increase from R-1 to M-OF. You're not asking to go to R-2 so you can do a cottage  
development. You're not asking to do anything like that. You're not saying, hey, you  
know, I want to upgrade my zoning. I mean, you are saying I want to upgrade my zoning  
so I can sell it for more, but the upgrade is multiple steps up, which is why you got push  
back from staff, and it is different from the rest of the neighborhood in that you've got a  
pretty massive stream buffer from commercial directly adjacent, and a pretty big  
thoroughfare. So, I mean, I guess, like, I think Commissioner Stanton is right. The thing  
that's causing every -- or at least me, maybe not everyone on the dais, but me, to go  
something is not adding up here is the I have a very specific plan, but also I have no plan.  
MR. BARRACO: Yeah.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I don't want to sell my house, but also I need to sell it  
fast.  
MR. BARRACO: Yeah. The plan is we live across that commercial now. It's going  
to be a hard buyer if you're getting one or two people to live across from that. So when  
you're thinking about selling your property in the future, you have to think about who is  
going to buy that. And so who is going to buy a property to put four houses across from  
that -- from that? It's probably going to be fewer people than are already reaching out to  
my parents. So it's just natural to go where -- okay. You have to respond to what's  
happening to you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Uh-huh.  
MR. BARRACO: So never thinking about this until you live through this -- this  
development and your whole world changes. And so then you have to adjust. And so it  
doesn't seem appropriate.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Then -- then why, when staff said we would support R-MF did  
you say no?  
MR. BARRACO: Because -- because A Civil Group said that it would probably be  
appropriate to push forward with the discussion of why office would make more sense to  
be around them, you know, as a neighbor, and that's what I listened.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Than you. Commissioner Carroll, did you have  
questions?  
MS. CARROLL: Yeah. I have questions. And that statement just kind of  
flabbergasted me a little bit there. I don't understand the premise either, and maybe I  
ought to leave this for Commissioner comment. You know that -- I guess I'm trying to find  
you a win-win here, and you said that you're worried that you will -- that you will find  
yourself pressed for time and having to sell at less than the value of the land to a  
developer who can upzone and get something better, but nobody is entitled to the best  
and highest value of their land. Right? They're entitled to what's granted for the land as  
it's presently zoned. Anybody can pursue an upzoning. It's somewhat rare that we don't  
go with staff recommendations. It's actually very rare that we don't go with staff  
recommendations. I think -- I think what I want to say is that your concern may be on a  
false premise because whoever might buy this from your parents will also have to seek an  
upzoning for that same parcel still zoned R-1 and still next to R-1. And they're going to  
encounter the same neighborhood, the same complaints, the same questions from staff.  
I'm not sure that this is a -- I'm not sure that this is a golden egg that would be granted to  
somebody other than yourself, and I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure that that opportunity  
needs to happen now. I'm sorry. I should have held onto this. I just -- I'm hoping that if I  
address the premise now, you'll have a chance to think about it before we close the  
public hearing. And I'm sorry that I lost my question in all of that. I guess we can move  
on.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Wilson?  
MS. WILSON: As has been stated, I understand where you're coming from and why.  
What I'm wondering is if you understand that it's our job to measure not only today and  
what your concerns are, but 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now and the concerns of those  
around you, as well. And so if we were to accept things just as they are, then we could  
possibly be making decisions that would be detrimental to others. It's a difficult balance.  
It's a difficult thing to weigh. Do you understand?  
MR. BARRACO: It's -- yeah. It's a lot that you guys have to weigh. I don't  
understand it completely, but I appreciate the point, yes.  
MS. WILSON: I would hope that you could have a side bar with your counsel.  
MR. BARRACO: Like everybody is saying the same thing.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Williams?  
MR. WILLIAMS: I can save it for -- for Commissioner comments.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Okay. Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: There's a reason why staff picked the particular zoning that they  
recommended because every one of those guys that have probably got about 100 years  
of school. Everybody is sitting over there has at least got a master's in this very thing.  
Eight years probably each person there, and I'm not even talking about the people that  
are not even in the room. Eggheads that have been reading about urban planning for  
decades. You get where I’m coming from? That counsel you're talking about, we have a  
whole office of that counsel with a minimum of eight -- six to eight years of education  
eggheading over this very topic. And there was a reason why staff picked this zoning  
after -- and the egghead that's sitting behind you that's really smart, that engineer, same  
way, same -- same way. And for us to listen to that man who is very intelligent, because  
I'm in the construction world, too -- very intelligent man behind you. But staff, to have that  
conversation with that intelligent man and still decide to do this is heavy. And the only  
reason I'm saying this is because you have one -- you'll have no out. You have to vote on  
this or stay where you are. And every -- that argument you just made, is you have no  
back door -- no back door. So think about that.  
MR. BARRACO: Okay.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Anyone else? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Next  
person? Just a show of hands. Anyone else going to come up after this? Okay. Go  
ahead.  
MR. SCHMIDT: Good evening. My name is Frank Schmidt; I live at 505 Silver  
Thorne. And full disclosure, I am a member of the Columbia Bicycle and Pedestrian  
Commission, and of The Local Motion board, but I emphasize that I'm not here for them.  
I'm wearing a different hat because I'm president of the Stoneridge Estates Homeowners  
Association, which is within 200 feet to the northwest of the subject tract. And we have  
approximately 140 homeowners. We and the board unanimously oppose the proposed  
rezoning. We don't take this position lightly. We've had very good years of friendly  
interaction and communication with Jay Gebhardt. In fact, I wrote a note about six  
months ago saying that our association had no objections to one of his projects, which  
adjoined our subdivision. The major objection is the proposal will convert a single-family  
residential area to more intensive mixed use, whether it's office or residential. It will  
encroach on the neighborhoods. Our neighbors in The Hamlet bought their homes with  
the expectation that they would adjoin single-family residential properties protected by  
zoning. As an example, rezoning of the Westbury property, which took close to 30 years  
from agricultural to R-1 to R-2 to commercial, has created a negative impact on our  
neighborhood. What was touted the last time it was rezoned as a walkable friendly  
community opened with a Wendy's and a tire store and a Petro-Mart, and I think that --  
that's along Scott. The -- the situation of construction basically damaged the median on  
Stone Valley Parkway, which is a city street that we maintain the median at the  
homeowners' expense. We have a traffic bottleneck between Dayspring and Scott. No  
one has mentioned that there is a street, alley, something behind the Petro Mart. It  
doesn't have a name. The businesses have the addresses as Scott Boulevard, although  
they don't adjoin Scott Boulevard. So coming off Smith going west, you have to make a  
sharp right into this unnamed alleyway, which is built to city street standards, as near as  
I can tell, and then make right turn in, get your gas, make left turn out. And the problem  
is that Smith zigzags in order to line up with Rollins Road. There have been bottlenecks,  
crashes, all kinds of stuff at that neighborhood or at that -- basically, between Dayspring  
and Smith and -- or I mean, and Scott. Scott-Smith intersection is horrible even now.  
And we're going to increase traffic -- not necessarily a good idea.  
Furthermore, I question whether Columbia really needs more office space. I -- I did a  
quick Google search and there are close to 200,000 square feet up for rent -- small sizes,  
big sizes, just about any place you want in town, lovely properties that aren't being rented  
because we're in a situation where people are working from home, office spaces are  
closing down. So just in terms of the viability of this proposal, I don't think it would  
happen. Ultimately, Columbia doesn't need nor can it afford another non-viable  
commercial property. Thank you. I urge you to reject the proposal.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Oh, thank you.  
MR. SCHMIDT: Sorry I went too long.  
MS. GEUEA JO0NES: Oh, you're fine. Any questions for this speaker? Seeing  
none. Thank you for being here tonight. And I believe our last speaker of the evening?  
Please come forward.  
MR. MURPHY: Good evening, Chair, and Commissioners. Kevin Murphy with A Civil  
Group, 3401 Broadway Business Park. The -- once again, M-OF is a perfectly  
acceptable zoning district in this per --  
MR. CRAIG: Mr. Murphy, can I have you speak a little closer into the -- into the  
microphone, and I believe some members of the public didn't catch who you were.  
MR. MURPHY: Sure.  
MR. CRAIG: If you could just say that one more time, please?  
MR. MURPHY: Kevin Murphy, A Civil Group, 3401 Broadway Business Park Court.  
I'm saying per the City's UDC code, which everyone worked so hard on, an M-OF district  
is to serve as a buffer between residential and more intensive non-residential uses. It is  
intended to allow innovative design approaches that reflect and respect the character of  
nearby residential areas without the need for rezoning to a planned district. The -- the  
graphic that accompanies that statement shows two office buildings right next to two  
residences. We know what -- what the setbacks are. We know what the heights are.  
We know what the buffers are. And M-OF provides more of all of that. We talk about the  
35-foot height, the 45-foot height. R-MF can build 45 feet, as well. It breaks down to the  
neighborhood production district -- protections. So you would still get a greater buffer in  
every aspect with M-OF than you would with that. Some of the speakers have spoke  
about traffic. Again, any traffic impacts we would -- any proposed development that would  
go here, known or not at this time, would have to prove that it is either addressing traffic  
impacts or is not -- does not need to. In the -- on the CATSO Plan, Stoneridge Parkway  
just to the west here is shown to connect to a future West Broadway extension, which  
would then help relieve this intersection in the future, as well. But for the Comprehensive  
Plan, this office employment within this marketplace node area is within a residential -- a  
walkable residential service area. These are all -- all things that -- that point out that this  
is perfectly acceptable to have a M-OF here versus solely R-MF, which again, could  
generate more traffic than an office situation, as admitted by staff. I just think we need to  
trust our ordinances and decide what the best use for this property is, and it's an infill  
development again next to a highly developed area, and it is designed -- M-OF is  
designed to be a buffer between those, and provides a greater protection than the R-MF,  
and that is why we suggested that to our client. I don't see why at looking these and  
comparing these how R-MF is greatly better than M-OF when there's so many more  
protections with the M-OF. I also have some examples here, just I'll point out some  
recent M-OF rezonings --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Murphy --  
MR. MURPHY: -- in residential areas at Garth and Sexton, at Tenth and Park,  
there was two or three --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Murphy, hi. I'm sorry. You've gone over time.  
MR. MURPHY: Okay. One more. On Texas Avenue and North Garth.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: All right. Are there any questions for Mr. Murphy? Thank  
you. Last call for any more members of the public? Seeing none. We will close public  
hearing and go to Commissioner comment.  
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner comments? Commissioner Stanton, we'll let  
you start.  
MR. STANTON: I'd like to entertain a motion.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I think we've got a couple. I know. I think we do have a  
couple of people who want to make comments, and then we'll come back.  
Commissioner Williams?  
MR. WILLIAMS: So under Missouri law, the burden is on individuals seeking  
rezoning to show that the current zoning is unreasonable. And I won't go through every  
factor in that, but one of which is the property value of -- you know, the value of the  
property, and certainly I can understand your comments regarding the property value  
being less for R-1, particularly given that it sits on a road that has become increasingly  
busy and looks out towards what is now a commercial space. So the balance there is  
that we have to look at -- so that's a detriment to you if we don't approve it. We have to  
balance that out against the public. The counterside to that is the public doesn't include  
just the neighbors there, so if the abutting property owners are against it, that's not a de  
facto reason because the abutting property owners don't speak -- are not representative of  
the public as a whole. So that's the weighing out that we have to do. I'm saying that just  
for the record, that these are the factors that we have to -- to consider. And when I look  
at this, I see on the positive side for the request that there is the surrounding zoning  
districts along Smith and Scott that would be reflective of a commercial use. This is  
lighter commercial use than those, and so that certainly weighs in favor of it. The  
property value aspect I mentioned weighs in favor of it. It's a lighter use, so it is a step  
down that weighs in favor of it, and it's also with -- consistent with the neighborhood  
district designation for Columbia Imagined. On the flip side, we have seen that there's  
some distinguishment between what's being requested and what's around it. So the M-C  
and M-N that are around it have the natural boundaries by the creek, which creates a  
greater setoff than would be present for this property if it was rezoned. And everything  
that's on the south side of Smith is R-1 except for those properties which have a natural  
setoff. We have to consider the neighboring property values. I do think that, you know, a  
25 or maybe it's increased rear yard, and, you know, space between the boundary -- the  
rear boundary of the property and a 35- or 45-foot-tall building isn't a great deal of  
distance when you think about the spacing there. And I've heard numerous individuals  
from the public who live in the area, but who do not live immediately abutting the property  
state that they are concerned about traffic because traffic is already an issue with  
congestion from the development on the north side of Smith Drive, in particular, as it gets  
close to Scott Boulevard, and the location of the subject property would be very close to  
that already congested intersection, and so it would add what currently there is no  
left-hand turn to any commercial business, it would add a left-hand turn to the south,  
whereas right now all the traffic is at least heading to the north into that commercial  
property. So those are the things that I'm looking at and I'm weighing out, and that leads  
me to believe that it's a fairly debatable position as to whether or not this is a proper  
request. And so for me, the up or down comes to there's no current plan and that means  
that whether this is up or down, or you told me suddenly that you were going to change it  
and it was going to be R-MF, there's still no plan. And given the counter balancing, I have  
concerns that that's just not equitable for the residents and the property owners around  
both the abutting ones concerned about their property value and the perhaps more distant  
neighbors concerned about the street. So in my view, weighing out the different factors,  
my weighing goes to voting no regardless of how it's zoned, whether it's the City's  
proposal or the applicant's proposal because I don't think it's proper given what we've  
heard to rezone this without a development plan presented to us.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Other comments? I would -- okay. Go ahead, Commissioner  
Walters.  
MR. WALTERS: I'm going to be in the minority view here because I'm looking at  
Google Maps here while we're talking, and when you look down Smith Drive, none of the  
homes front on Scott Boulevard. So this property, though it's zoned R-1, and if it were  
left R-1, it would be forced to have frontage on Scott Boulevard -- Smith Boulevard. I'm  
sorry. I said Smith and Scott. sorry about that. When I look down Smith Drive, none of  
the home sites front on Smith Boulevard -- Smith Drive -- sorry. That doesn't show here  
the layout of Breckenridge Park.  
(Multiple audience members speaking simultaneously.)  
MS. GEUEA JONES: So I -- we can't -- I'm sorry. For the record, the audience  
members were explaining that there is one home that fronts onto Smith.  
MR. WALTERS: Right. That's the only -- that's right -- sorry. That's right. There's  
one there, but I'm talking about more current subdivisions, like Stone Valley Parkway.  
None of them are -- none of them face Smith Drive. The Hamlet, none of them face Smith  
Drive, and I don't think it's probably true in Breckenridge, none of them face Smith Drive.  
And there's a reason for that because you have cars that would be going in and out of the  
drives, as you know, and backing right onto a busy street, and that's not preferable. It's  
possible, but not preferable. And I just think that it's not unreasonable to -- to assume  
that you could incorporate some mixed-use office into a subdivision like this. I've done it  
before in some of my subdivisions. At Veterans Walk on the south side of town across  
from Walgreen's, we started that plat and we had commercial zoning there without a plan.  
Yet in The Highlands, at the front where there's a swimming pool, there's a -- now there's  
a doctor's office on Forum Boulevard. It was done without a plan. It is not impossible or  
weird to have people come in and request zoning without a plan. Now it certainly makes  
neighbors uneasy. I get that. It's certainly understandable. But I think there is  
distinction here and I think the reason that A Civil Group probably chose this type of  
zoning was because there is opportunity for further input on the required preliminary plat  
that will follow this. Yes, it's scary to see the open zoning now, but there is that -- the  
next step is to see a plan that would illustrate setbacks, talk more about the topography,  
talk more about storm water, talk more about lighting, talk more about density, and also  
take into consideration the grade of the land. Anyway, I'm going to be the only dissenting  
vote here, but I think it's worth pointing out that there -- some people are alleging how  
really unusual or how unordinary this request is, and I don't -- I don't believe that at all.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Further comments? Commissioner Carroll and then  
Commissioner Loe.  
MS. CARROLL: I will make a comment. Grading of the land does come into my  
evaluation of this because it tells me how well it can be screened. The other thing, as far  
as how uncommon this may or may not be, I do think that this is a somewhat common  
request for zoning without a plan. That's not at all uncommon -- zoning without a plan. I  
don't have a problem with that. What's uncommon is bringing forward a request knowing  
that you don't have a staff recommendation and sticking to it without a plan. Usually --  
that is an uncommon scenario. That doesn't come to us very frequently, and I trust the  
evaluation of our staff.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Commissioner Loe?  
MS. LOE: I would like to start first with clarification from Mr. Zenner just to confirm  
that single-family homes would probably not be allowed to have driveways onto Smith?  
MR. ZENNER: Single -- single nor two-family would be allowed to have driveways  
directly on Smith Drive as a restricted access roadway.  
MR. WALTERS: Would or would not?  
MS. LOE: Would not.  
MR. ZENNER: Would not. Commercial development utilizing a shared point of  
access and multi-family development, commercial inclusive of the office zoning district,  
would be permissible because that is not a private driveway. It's not a private residential  
drive. It is a private what we would consider commercial access into a parking lot. And  
so, as Mr. Gebhardt pointed out, the likelihood of where that may be located is directly  
across from Dayspring. Based on sight disability conditions associated with the  
curvature in the roadway, so that is -- that's the regulatory standard as it relates. This -- if  
this were to be developed as a residential approximate five-acre tract of land, it would  
likely either be a short cul-de-sac or it would be a loop street.  
MR. WALTERS: A short cul-de-sac or what?  
MR. ZENNER: A loop street -- not over 300 feet in length. But -- so we would -- we  
would end up with something that would be more conventional to what you see in the  
subdivisions to the south, most likely.  
MS. LOE: Thank you, Mr. Zenner. I would also like to just observe that when we did  
approve the development north of Smith, I remember there was discussion about the M-C  
and M-N lots to the south, and the fact that there is a physical creek buffer that was  
provided by the creek between those zoned lots and the R-1 residential lots was critical  
in approving that M-C, M-N. And I would see this upzoning as being a creep because it's  
coming across that physical buffer that we did take into evaluation when we looked at  
that development previously. So while I understand the proximity, it is impinging on other  
factors we took into consideration. To A Civil Group's comments about the use of M-OF  
adjacent to residential, I am very much in support of multi-use development, and I fully  
support the examples that we included in the UDC. However, I'm also very sensitive to  
existing zoning, especially R-1. As our applicant has pointed out, R-1 property is often  
an individual's largest investment or one of their largest investments, as well as their  
home. And because of that, I do not approve upzoning adjacent to R-1 at all lately, and  
when I do, it has to be with the support of adjacent property owners, and I do not hear  
that this evening, so I will not be supporting the proposal to upzone.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: Just to piggyback off Commissioner Loe, I'm all about increasing  
family wealth. I'm all about getting the most out of your property. But to that -- to that  
very statement, there are zones that are made -- you know, I think R-MF might even be  
too big. I might have sent with a neighborhood multi-family or, you know, I would have  
probable came down a little lower, because your neighbors have a great impact on what's  
there and that -- that M-C that's right connected, that's why we really get upset about that  
because that's the first move somebody makes. Well, it's M-C over here or it's M-F over  
here, and if you look across the street, that -- right behind that M-C is an R-MF for a  
reason, and that's what I would support. If it was R-MF, I would be like gung-ho, let's go.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: I'll just say one thing and then -- and then if you would like to  
make the motion. So I am well known, I think, at this point, and very vocal about wanting  
straight zoning, trusting or code, et cetera. If this were R-MF, I would be in favor of it,  
potentially not withstanding the neighbors' hesitations, because R-MF is the buffering that  
is also presented around this neighborhood, as Commissioner Stanton just said, because  
R-MF provides a variety of potentials, because you could do tri-plexes, four-plexes, you  
know, condo situation, a lot of things, but most importantly because R-MF would provide  
more housing, which our city desperately needs. And the fact that we've got no flexibility  
here, the fact that staff provided good counsel and it was ignored, and there have been  
multiple things said tonight that set off red flags in my brain. And I don't know that  
anyone is being purposefully disingenuous, but I think people are shading things to try to  
get a result and aren't being totally forthcoming. So I -- I don't know what conversations  
went on during the concept review, but I would strongly encourage both this particular  
applicant and all applicants to listen to the wise counsel from staff who deal with us on a  
daily basis almost at this point, and have gotten pretty good at being able to guide people  
to a win-win situation. So I am a little bit disappointed that we're not going to be able to  
get there with this because I also, you know, without going into everyone's personal  
business, and then a similar situation in a completely different state right now where I'm  
trying to figure out what to do, and I'm sympathetic to that, truly. It is hard and the health  
care sucks, but I can't go M-F or I can't go M-OF. I think we've all -- unless  
Commissioner Wilson wants to say anything, would anyone like to make a motion? For  
everyone listening, all motions are made in the affirmative, don't freak out. Commissioner  
Stanton?  
MR. STANTON: That would freak me out just now.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Sorry.  
MR. STANTON: As it relates to Case 183-2024, 4414 Smith Drive rezoning, I move  
to --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Approve the rezoning from --  
MR. STANTON: -- approve the rezoning -- M-OF zoning -- approve M-OF zoning.  
You messed me up.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Sorry.  
MS. LOE: I'll second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Motion was made by Commissioner Stanton and seconded by  
Commissioner Loe. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none.  
Commissioner Carroll, when you're ready, may we have a roll call.  
Roll Call Vote (Voting "yes" is to recommend approval.) Voting Yes: Mr.  
Walters. Voting No: Ms. Geuea Jones, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Loe, Mr. Stanton, Mr.  
Williams, Ms. Carroll. Motion fails 6-1.  
MS. CARROLL: We have six no votes and one yes. The motion is defeated.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City  
Council. That concludes our case business for the evening. We will now go to general  
public comments.  
Move to approve M-OF zoning  
1 - Walters  
Yes:  
6 - Loe, Stanton, Carroll, Geuea Jones, Wilson and Williams  
2 - Placier and Baysinger  
No:  
Absent:  
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Is there anyone here from the public to make general  
comments? Seeing none.  
VIII. STAFF COMMENTS  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Mr. Zenner?  
MR. ZENNER: Yes. So your next meeting will be on July 8th. We will have a  
standard work session --  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Perhaps August 8th, sir?  
MR. ZENNER: I'm sorry. August 8th. What did I say?  
MS. GEUEA JONES: July.  
MR. ZENNER: July 8th? Okay. Well, we didn't have our first July meeting, so I  
thought we might as well make it up. August 8th, 5:30 p.m., you'll have your work  
sessions. Mr. Kunz is working on some material from our prior conversation as it related  
to some lot analysis that you had asked for in regards to the zoning information, so we  
hopefully will have something there. I will hopefully also have something to provide you  
potentially from a use specific standards standpoint. I begin my annual summer vacation  
here on Sunday and hope to not have to pick up a computer while I'm away for two  
weeks, but I will be back bright, bushy-tailed to give you another STR report on the 8th.  
So we only have two actual business items on the 8th. One is, as I indicated, another  
short-term rental CUP request. This is a little bit different. This will be a property owner  
that is a long-term rental property owner and is seeking to have a short-term rental  
authorized as a CUP within a multi-united building up on St. Joseph, so this one unit out  
of a four-unit building that they are desiring to place into a 210-night short-term rental.  
And because it is presently a long-term rental, the entire building is long-term rental, the  
remaining days beyond the 210 potentially could be utilized for a occupant greater than  
30 days under a single contract. The second rezoning request is more of a traditional  
rezoning. This is off of 119 Fyfer Place. This is presently adjacent, it's right on the  
boundary between the R-2 zoning district to the east and the R-1 zoning, as you come  
back up Fyfer towards East Broadway where the new white, relatively modern looking  
buildings are built, directly across from the Boone Medical Office Park, the very eastern  
side of the Boone Medical Office Park. The purpose behind this request is is when the  
home was purchased, it had been previously being utilized, I believe, as a non-conforming  
four unrelated individual R-1 structure. And when the property owners purchased the  
property, it is a four-bedroom unit, they are wanting to be able to activate that fourth  
bedroom for rental purposes, and they are seeking to rezone the property. Mr. Palmer is  
presenting this, and I will allow him to unpack the details for you, but that is the  
underlying premise. The house in question, just as an additional teaser, the house in  
question is actually the biggest house on this segment of Fyfer. It is more consistent  
actually with the homes that are in the R-2 zoning district that is immediately to the east.  
So Mr. Palmer will provide the rest of the details associated with that. The applicant, I  
can tell you, has been very methodical in providing comparisons of square footage,  
bedrooms, and everything else in the surrounding area to assist in making their  
argument. So for the purposes of context, here is our St. Joseph short-term rental CUP  
request. This would be, again, just Unit D of the four-unit building that exists, and then  
our Fyfer -- Fyfer Place rezoning request there that is seeking to go from R-1 to R-2. At  
this point, I would like to take an opportunity to introduce our newest staff member to the  
general public. So Kirtis, if you would come up. Kirtis Orendorff joins us from the school  
of hard knocks and eight years of studying. Apparently, he has poured over the books  
from UW Milwaukee, has a computer science degree from the University of Missouri, so  
everybody that goes to Missouri comes back to Missouri, apparently, so we have  
recruited him back in. But we are welcome to have him aboard. He will be working  
probably a little bit more closely with Mr. Kunz as it relates to some of the technical and  
computer and data related issues. You will see on August 8th my next newest planner  
who will be starting on Monday. So we are introducing them slowly, but surely. I was  
unfortunately informed today that the senior planner that we had offered a conditional offer  
to withdrew, so we will be starting that process again for a new position. But we will  
hopefully have that wrapped up with a qualified candidate sometime in August if not  
sometime in September. We have a lot of different things that we are working on  
upstairs. Not only are we -- Mr. Teddy is working with the consultant on the H3 study.  
A lot of the information presented tonight will be useful in his communications with Tim  
Breihan, with H3. We are also -- we have launched with CBB out of St. Louis our  
transportation -- Metropolitan Transportation Plan update. That is underway and that is  
Mr. Skov's project at this point. The Comprehensive Plan is a topic that we will get to,  
and it is something that we have indicated to city management staff that we will be doing  
the RFP release later this -- early this fall. Some of that is contingent, of course, on  
staffing. Some of it is also contingent on some of the other activities community wide  
that are going on, such as the housing study with the County, the County's  
Comprehensive Plan, and a number of other things that we are working on that can inform  
our work. So Mr. Teddy and I may need to have a conversation with upper management  
as it relates to how do we want to schedule the Comprehensive Plan into the process  
given where we are on all of the other major documents we're working on here locally. So  
we've got a lot of interesting things that I think we'll be bringing forward to you. We also  
have probably got a set of amendments to the Code that we will need to bring for some  
subdivision-related changes that are essential in order for us to address some concerns  
and comments. With that, I want to let Kirtis say a little bit about himself, give a little bit  
more of his background and bio, if that's not too much of an inconvenience.  
MR. ORENDORFF: Good evening, Council. So as Mr. Zenner pointed out, I got my  
degree here, lived here for four years in computer science. Lived in Milwaukee for a good  
chunk of time doing that. Wasn't the right fit, so got my Masters in urban planning up  
there, and had to come home. Just I had that call in the back of my head. The past two  
weeks have been very enlightening and so far it's like seeing kind of the other side of  
things. When you're living here as a college student, you maybe don't think about the  
rest of the city because you're doing college student activities, so -- yeah. It's been very  
exciting. It's been already very fulfilling, so excited to get to work with your team in the  
next -- in the future in here.  
MR. ZENNER: Slowly introduce him into projects, so you all don't terrorize him in an  
early state in his career.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Shocked he stayed.  
MR. ZENNER: And I would like to extend our welcome to Mr. Walters.  
Congratulations on your appointment and surviving through about a four and a half hour  
meeting, it seems. They can get more interesting and more complex.  
MR. WALTERS: They can be or can't be.  
MR. ZENNER: They can. So we also will be doing some training, and Mr. Craig and  
Mr. Kraus will be some of our annual training. There are some things that occurred this  
evening that I think we need to discuss with you in a work session setting, as well, to  
ensure that everybody is operating from the same page in the play book as it relates to  
particular processes, and I don't want to go into that at this point, given the late hour. So  
we've got a couple of things that I think that we'll have to you that we're augment a little  
bit of what our regular diet is of talking about the small lots and doing some analysis on  
lots and then getting into some of the things with H3 that we discussed tonight as well.  
So look forward to those opportunities. Thank you. Hopefully you enjoyed your break,  
and I'm looking forward to mine.  
IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you. So also thank you to Commissioner Walters, and  
if you would like to say anything -- you don't have to. It's not mandatory.  
MR. WALTERS: No. I'm happy to be here.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Great. And --  
MR. WALTERS: Not at 11:00, but I'm happy to be here.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: No, I know. Unless something untoward happens, this will be  
Commissioner Carroll's last meeting, I believe. So if you want to say anything, you don't  
have to, either. It's also not mandatory for you.  
MS. CARROLL: I was going to make a comment. I just noticed -- actually I hadn't  
realized what date fell on a Monday until I was looking at the calendar when I got here.  
This may be my last meeting, and I just wanted to say that it's been an absolute honor to  
serve with you all the past five years, and welcome to the new folks. Thank you for  
teaching me, helping me learn and grow as a Commissioner. Thank you for bearing with  
me, staff, and teaching me, as well. It's been a wonderful experience, and I look forward  
to hearing from all of you frequently, and reading the minutes, which I will do. Thank you.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Thank you, Commissioner Carroll. You will be missed, but we  
have your number and your e-mail address, so -- all right. Anybody else want to say  
anything maybe? Anthony?  
MR. STANTON: Well, we get frustrated with City Council, we don't mean you yet,  
but we'll hope, you know, maybe you'll remember us on the other side of these issues.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: Yeah. Would you want to move to --  
X. NEXT MEETING DATE - August 8, 2024 @ 7 pm (tentative)  
XI. ADJOURNMENT  
MR. STANTON: I move to adjourn. Is that what you mean?  
MS. LOE: Second.  
MS. GEUEA JONES: All right. Without objection, we will stand adjourned. Thank  
you all for your patience this evening.  
(Off the record.)  
(The meeting adjourned at 11:14 p.m.)  
Move to adjourn